[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 7 (Monday, January 31, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S649-S674]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. THOMAS:
S. 203. A bill to reduce temporarily the royalty required to be paid
for sodium produced on Federal lands, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Soda Ash
Royalty Reduction Act of 2005,'' a bill to limit the Federal royalty on
soda ash. This legislation, if passed, will put people back to work in
my State and address the important issue of maintaining a strong and
financially sound manufacturing base in this country. It will keep jobs
in America and give workers a fighting chance to compete globally.
The State of Wyoming accounts for 85 percent of the natural soda ash
produced in the United States. The health of the domestic soda ash
industry is now at issue. This legislation goes a long way towards
assisting the domestic industry to be competitive on a global basis.
The bill reduces an excessive tax on natural American soda ash; a tax
that is significantly impairing the ability of U.S. exported soda ash
to compete in important global markets; a tax that has helped create 30
percent decline in employment in this industry in Wyoming since 1997.
The current 6 percent royalty on each ton of domestically produced soda
ash was imposed in 1995 at a time when our exports of this important
commodity, primarily used in the manufacture of glass were rising to
record levels. It was a windfall tax that recognized the industry's
significant expansion.
Over the last decade, export growth has been severely impacted, as
several trading partners erected various barriers to U.S. soda ash,
often to protect their own less efficient domestic producers. One of
the most aggressive countries has been China. As recently as 1990,
China imported over one million tons of soda ash annually from the U.S.
Today, China exports two million tons from plants that produce a
synthetic grade of this important commodity.
The Chinese produce soda ash in far less efficient factories with
limited attention to environmental or safety concerns. The average wage
of a Chinese worker in these plants is less than $5 a day. By contrast
Wyoming soda ash workers can earn on average $35 an hour. Chinese soda
ash producers, which are largely state owned, also benefit from direct
and indirect forms of state support, as well as the benefits of a fixed
exchange rate. As a result of these actions, China has supplanted the
United States as the world's largest exporter of soda ash.
Wyoming soda ash producers remain the most efficient in the world and
have been constantly improving their productivity over the last several
years. It is an industry that is reinventing itself to meet the demands
of fierce global competition.
My legislation restores the original royalty the Federal Government
imposed on soda ash in the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. That act set a
2 percent royalty on soda ash mined on Federal leases. We would
temporarily resume that royalty rate consistent with the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976 that requires the Secretary of the
Interior to receive ``fair market value'' for the use of public lands
and their resources. In other words, the legislation simply adjusts
what was a windfall tax back to its original level.
The legislation is overdue and keeps our Nation's commitment to U.S.
based manufacturing and jobs. The U.S. soda ash industry has been a
good partner with the Federal Government, providing additional revenue
when business was flourishing. Now that the industry is fighting for
its survival, the Federal Government has the opportunity to be a
responsible partner and ease its tax burden so it can survive and
provide the thousands of jobs that are so important to my State.
______
By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself and Mr. Vitter):
S. 204. A bill to establish the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area in
the State of Louisiana; to the Committeee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I rise, along with Senator Vitter,
to introduce a bill to establish the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area
in Louisiana. This legislation has particularly special meaning to
those of us from Louisiana because of the importance of the cultural
and natural resources of the Atchafalaya region to the Nation. It would
establish a framework to help protect, conserve, and promote these
unique natural, cultural, historical, and recreational resources of the
region.
This legislation, which has been passed by the full Senate 3 times,
once during the 107th Congress and twice during the 108th Congress,
would establish a framework to help protect, conserve, and promote
these unique natural, cultural, historical, and recreational resources
of the region.
Specifically, the legislation would establish a National Heritage
Area in Louisiana that encompasses thirteen parishes in and around the
Atchafalaya Basin swamp, America's largest river swamp. The heritage
area in south-central Louisiana stretches from Concordia parish to the
north, where the Mississippi River begins to partially flow into the
Atchafalaya River, all the way to the Gulf of Mexico in the south. The
thirteen parishes are: St. Mary, Iberia, St. Martin, St. Landry,
Avoyelles, Pointe Coupee, Iberville, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafayette,
West Baton Rouge, Concordia, and East Baton Rouge. This boundary is the
same area covered by the existing Atchafalaya Trace State Heritage
Area.
This measure will appoint the existing Atchafalaya Trace Commission
as the federally recognized ``local coordinating entity.'' The
commission is composed of thirteen members with one representative
appointed by each parish in the heritage area. Both the Atchafalaya
Trace Commission and the Atchafalaya Trace State Heritage Area were
created by the Louisiana Legislature a number of years ago. The
Atchafalaya Trace State Heritage Area program currently receives some
State funding, and already has staff working at the Louisiana
Department of Culture, Recreation & Tourism, DCRT, under Lieutenant
Governor Kathleen Blanco. State funds were used to create
[[Page S650]]
the management plan for the heritage area, which followed ``feasibility
analysis'' guidelines as recommended by the National Park Service.
Therefore, the recently-completed management plan need only be
submitted to the Secretary of the Interior for approval as this
legislation would recognize an existing local coordinating entity that
will oversee the implementation of this plan. We are very proud that
this state heritage area has already completed the complicated planning
process, with participation of local National Park Service
representatives, while using a standard of planning quality equal to
that of existing national heritage areas. All at no cost to the Federal
Government.
Please let me also emphasize that this legislation protects existing
private property rights. It will not interfere with local land use
ordinances or regulations, as it is specifically prohibited from doing
so. Nor does this legislation grant any powers of real property
acquisition to the local coordinating entity or heritage area program.
In addition, the legislation does not impose any environmental rule or
process or cause any change in Federal environmental quality standards
different from those already in effect.
Heritage areas are based on cooperation and collaboration at all
levels. This legislation remains true to the core concept behind
heritage areas. The heritage area concept has been used successfully in
various parts of our Nation to promote historic preservation, natural
and cultural resource protection, heritage tourism and sustainable
economic revitalization for both urban and rural areas. Heritage areas
provide a flexible framework for government agencies, private
organizations and businesses and landowners to work together on a
coordinated regional basis. The Atchafalaya National Heritage Area will
join the Cane River National Heritage Area to become the second
National Heritage Area in Louisiana, ultimately joining the 23 existing
National Heritage Areas around the Nation.
The initiative to develop the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area is
an outgrowth of a grassroots effort to achieve multiple goals of this
region. Most important among these is providing opportunities for the
future, while at the same time not losing anything that makes this
place so special. Residents from all over the region, local tourism
agencies, State agencies such as the DCRT and the Department of Natural
Resources, the State legislature, Federal agencies including the
National Park Service and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, parish
governments, conservation and preservation groups, local businesses and
local landowners have all participated in this endeavor to make it the
strong initiative it is today. These groups have been very supportive
of the heritage area effort, and as time moves on, the heritage area
will continue to involve more and more of the area's most important
resource, its people.
I would also like to give you a brief overview of the resources that
make this place significant to the entire country. Not only is it
important to our Nation's history, but it is also critical to
understanding America's future. The name of the place itself,
Atchafalaya, comes from the American Indians and means ``long river.''
This name signifies the first settlers of the region, descendants of
whom still live there today.
Other words come to mind in describing the Atchafalaya: mysterious,
dynamic, multi-cultural, enchanting, bountiful, threatened and
undiscovered. This region is one of the most complex and least
understood places in Louisiana and the Nation. Yet, the stories of the
Atchafalaya Heritage Area are emblematic of the broader American
experience. Here there are opportunities to understand and witness the
complicated, sometimes harmonious, sometimes adversarial interplay
between nature and culture. The history of the United States has been
shaped by the complex dance of its people working with, against, and
for, nature. Within the Atchafalaya a penchant for adventure,
adaptation, ingenuity, and exploitation has created a cultural legacy
unlike anywhere else in the world.
The heart of the heritage area is the Atchafalaya Basin. It is the
largest river swamp in the United States, larger than the more widely
known Everglades or Okefenokee Swamp. The Atchafalaya is characterized
by a maze of streams, and at one time was thickly forested with old-
growth cypress and tupelo trees. The Basin provides outstanding habitat
for a remarkably diverse array of wildlife, including the endangered
American bald eagle and Louisiana black bear. The region's unique
ecology teems with life. More than 85 species of fish; crustaceans,
such as crawfish; wildlife, including alligators; an astonishing array
of well over 200 species of birds, from waterfowl to songbirds; forest-
dwelling mammals such as deer, squirrel, beaver and other commercially
important furbearers all make their home here. Bottomland hardwood-
dependent bird species breed here in some of the highest densities ever
recorded in annual North American Breeding Bird Surveys. The Basin also
forms part of the Mississippi Valley Flyway for migratory waterfowl and
is a major wintering ground for thousands of these geese and ducks. In
general, the Atchafalaya Basin has a significant proportion of North
America's breeding wading birds, such as herons, egrets, ibises, and
spoonbills. Some of the largest flocks of Wood Storks in North America
summer here, and the southern part of the Basin has a healthy
population of Bald Eagles nesting every winter.
The region's dynamic system of waterways, geology, and massive
earthen guide levees reveals a landscape that is at once fragile and
awesome. The geology and natural systems of the Atchafalaya Heritage
Area have fueled the economy of the region for centuries. For decades
the harvest of cypress, cotton, sugar cane, crawfish, salt, oil, gas,
and Spanish moss, have been important sources of income for the
region's residents. The crawfish industry has been particularly
important to the lives of Atchafalaya residents and Louisiana has
become the largest crawfish producer in the United States. Sport
fishing and other forms of commercial fishing are important here, too,
but unfortunately, natural resource extraction and a changing
environment have drastically depleted many of these resources and
forced residents to find new ways to make a living.
Over the past century, the Atchafalaya Basin has become a study of
man's monumental effort to control nature. After the catastrophic
Mississippi River flood of 1927 left thousands dead and millions
displaced, the U.S. Congress decreed that the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers should develop an intricate system of levees to protect human
settlements, particularly New Orleans. Today, the Mississippi River is
caged within the walls of earthen and concrete levees and manipulated
with a complex system of locks, barrages and floodgates. The
Atchafalaya River runs parallel to the Mississippi and through the
center of the Basin. In times of flooding the river basin serves as the
key floodway in controlling floodwaters headed for the large population
centers of Baton Rouge and New Orleans by diverting water from the
Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico. This system was sorely tested
in 1973 when floodwaters threatened to break through the floodgates and
permanently divert the Mississippi River into the Atchafalaya. However,
after this massive flood event, new land started forming off the coast.
These new land formations make up the Atchafalaya Delta, and is the
only significant area of new land being built in the United States.
These vast amounts of Mississippi River sediment are also rapidly
filling in the Basin itself, raising the level of land in certain areas
of the basin and filling in lakes and waterways. And to demonstrate
just how complex this ecosystem is, one only needs to realize that just
to the East of the Delta, Terrebonne parish, also in the heritage area,
is experiencing some of the most significant coastal land loss in the
country.
Over the centuries, the ever-changing natural environment has shaped
the lives of the people living in the Basin. Residents have profited
from and been imperiled by nature. The popular cultural identity of the
region is strongly associated with the Cajuns, descendants of the
French-speaking Acadians who settled in south Louisiana after being
deported by the British from Nova Scotia, formerly known as Acadia.
Twenty-five hundred to three
[[Page S651]]
thousand exiled Acadians repatriated in Louisiana where they proceeded
to re-establish their former society. Today, in spite of complex
social, cultural, and demographic transformations, Cajuns maintain a
sense of group identity and continue to display a distinctive set of
cultural expressions nearly 250 years after their exile from Acadia.
Cajun culture has become increasingly popular outside of Louisiana.
Culinary specialties adapted from France and Acadia such as etouffee,
boudin, andouille, crepes, beignets and sauces thickened with roux,
delight food lovers well beyond Louisiana's borders. Cajun music has
also ``gone mainstream'' with its blend of French folk songs and
ballads and instrumental dance music, and more recently popular
country, rhythm-and-blues, and rock music influences. While the growing
interest in Cajun culture has raised appreciation for its unique
traditions, many of the region's residents are concerned about the
growing commercialization and stereotyping that threatens to diminish
the authentic Cajun ways of life.
While the Atchafalaya Heritage Area may be well known for its Cajun
culture, there is an astonishing array of other cultures within these
parishes. Outside of New Orleans, the Atchafalaya Heritage Area is the
most racially and ethnically complex region of Louisiana, and has been
so for many years. A long legacy of multiculturalism presents
interesting opportunities to examine how so many distinct cultures have
survived in relative harmony. There may be interesting lessons to learn
from here as our Nation becomes increasingly heterogeneous. The
cultural complexity of this region has created a rich tapestry of
history and traditions, evidenced by the architecture, music, language,
food and festivals unlike any place else. Ethnic groups of the
Atchafalaya include: African-Americans, Black Creoles, Asians, Chinese,
Filipinos, Vietnamese, Lebanese, Cajuns, Spanish Islenos, Italians,
Scotch-Irish, and American Indian tribes such as the Attakapa,
Chitimacha, Coushatta, Houma, Opelousa and Tunica-Biloxi.
This heritage area has a wealth of existing cultural, historic,
natural, scenic, recreational and visitor resources on which to build.
Scenic resources include numerous State Wildlife Management Areas and
National Wildlife Refuges, as well as ten designated state scenic
byways that fall partially or entirely within the heritage area. The
Office of State Parks operates three historic sites in the heritage
area, and numerous historic districts and buildings can be found in the
region. There are also nine Main Street communities in the heritage
area. Outdoor recreational resources include two State Parks and a
multitude of waterways and bayous. Hunting, fishing, boating, and
canoeing, and more recently birdwatching and cycling, are popular ways
to experience the region. Various visitor attractions, interpretive
centers and visitor information centers exist to help residents and
tourists alike better understand and navigate many of the resources in
the heritage area. Major roads link the heritage area's central visitor
entrance points and large population centers, especially New Orleans.
Much of the hospitality industry servicing the Atchafalaya exists
around the larger cities of Baton Rouge, Lafayette and Houma. However,
more and more bed and breakfasts and heritage accommodations, such as
houseboat rentals, are becoming more numerous in the smaller towns and
rural areas.
These are just some of the examples of the richness and significance
of this region. This legislation will assist communities throughout
this heritage area who are committed to the conservation and
appropriate development of these assets. Furthermore, this legislation
will bring a level of prestige and national and international
recognition that this most special of places certainly deserves.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 204
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 ``Atchafalaya National
Heritage Area Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Heritage area.--The term ``Heritage Area'' means the
Atchafalaya National Heritage Area established by section
3(a).
(2) Local coordinating entity.--The term ``local
coordinating entity'' means the local coordinating entity for
the Heritage Area designated by section 3(c).
(3) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means
the management plan for the Heritage Area developed under
section 5.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(5) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of
Louisiana.
SEC. 3. ATCHAFALAYA NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA.
(a) Establishment.--There is established in the State the
Atchafalaya National Heritage Area.
(b) Boundaries.--The Heritage Area shall consist of the
whole of the following parishes in the State: St. Mary,
Iberia, St. Martin, St. Landry, Avoyelles, Pointe Coupee,
Iberville, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafayette, West Baton
Rouge, Concordia, and East Baton Rouge.
(c) Local Coordinating Entity.--
(1) In general.--The Atchafalaya Trace Commission shall be
the local coordinating entity for the Heritage Area.
(2) Composition.--The local coordinating entity shall be
composed of 13 members appointed by the governing authority
of each parish within the Heritage Area.
SEC. 4. AUTHORITIES AND DUTIES OF THE LOCAL COORDINATING
ENTITY.
(a) Authorities.--For the purposes of developing and
implementing the management plan and otherwise carrying out
this Act, the local coordinating entity may--
(1) make grants to, and enter into cooperative agreements
with, the State, units of local government, and private
organizations;
(2) hire and compensate staff; and
(3) enter into contracts for goods and services.
(b) Duties.--The local coordinating entity shall--
(1) submit to the Secretary for approval a management plan;
(2) implement the management plan, including providing
assistance to units of government and others in--
(A) carrying out programs that recognize important resource
values within the Heritage Area;
(B) encouraging sustainable economic development within the
Heritage Area;
(C) establishing and maintaining interpretive sites within
the Heritage Area; and
(D) increasing public awareness of, and appreciation for
the natural, historic, and cultural resources of, the
Heritage Area;
(3) adopt bylaws governing the conduct of the local
coordinating entity; and
(4) for any year for which Federal funds are received under
this Act, submit to the Secretary a report that describes,
for the year--
(A) the accomplishments of the local coordinating entity;
and
(B) the expenses and income of the local coordinating
entity.
(c) Acquisition of Real Property.--The local coordinating
entity shall not use Federal funds received under this Act to
acquire real property or an interest in real property.
(d) Public Meetings.--The local coordinating entity shall
conduct public meetings at least quarterly.
SEC. 5. MANAGEMENT PLAN.
(a) In General.--The local coordinating entity shall
develop a management plan for the Heritage Area that
incorporates an integrated and cooperative approach to
protect, interpret, and enhance the natural, scenic,
cultural, historic, and recreational resources of the
Heritage Area.
(b) Consideration of Other Plans and Actions.--In
developing the management plan, the local coordinating entity
shall--
(1) take into consideration State and local plans; and
(2) invite the participation of residents, public agencies,
and private organizations in the Heritage Area.
(c) Contents.--The management plan shall include--
(1) an inventory of the resources in the Heritage Area,
including--
(A) a list of property in the Heritage Area that--
(i) relates to the purposes of the Heritage Area; and
(ii) should be preserved, restored, managed, or maintained
because of the significance of the property; and
(B) an assessment of cultural landscapes within the
Heritage Area;
(2) provisions for the protection, interpretation, and
enjoyment of the resources of the Heritage Area consistent
with this Act;
(3) an interpretation plan for the Heritage Area; and
(4) a program for implementation of the management plan
that includes--
(A) actions to be carried out by units of government,
private organizations, and public-private partnerships to
protect the resources of the Heritage Area; and
(B) the identification of existing and potential sources of
funding for implementing the plan.
(d) Submission to Secretary for Approval.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the local coordinating entity shall
submit the
[[Page S652]]
management plan to the Secretary for approval.
(2) Effect of failure to submit.--If a management plan is
not submitted to the Secretary by the date specified in
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall not provide any additional
funding under this Act until a management plan for the
Heritage Area is submitted to the Secretary.
(e) Approval.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after receiving the
management plan submitted under subsection (d)(1), the
Secretary, in consultation with the State, shall approve or
disapprove the management plan.
(2) Action following disapproval.--
(A) In general.--If the Secretary disapproves a management
plan under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall--
(i) advise the local coordinating entity in writing of the
reasons for the disapproval;
(ii) make recommendations for revisions to the management
plan; and
(iii) allow the local coordinating entity to submit to the
Secretary revisions to the management plan.
(B) Deadline for approval of revision.--Not later than 90
days after the date on which a revision is submitted under
subparagraph (A)(iii), the Secretary shall approve or
disapprove the revision.
(f) Revision.--
(1) In general.--After approval by the Secretary of a
management plan, the local coordinating entity shall
periodically--
(A) review the management plan; and
(B) submit to the Secretary, for review and approval by the
Secretary, the recommendations of the local coordinating
entity for any revisions to the management plan that the
local coordinating entity considers to be appropriate.
(2) Expenditure of funds.--No funds made available under
this title shall be used to implement any revision proposed
by the local coordinating entity under paragraph (1)(B) until
the Secretary approves the revision.
SEC. 6. REQUIREMENTS FOR INCLUSION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY.
(a) Notification and Consent of Property Owners Required.--
No privately owned property shall be preserved, conserved, or
promoted by the management plan for the Heritage Area until
the owner of that private property has been notified in
writing by the management entity and has given written
consent to the management entity for such preservation,
conservation, or promotion.
(b) Landowner Withdraw.--Any owner of private property
included within the boundary of the Heritage Area shall have
that private property immediately removed from the boundary
by submitting a written request to the management entity.
SEC. 7. PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION.
(a) Access to Private Property.--Nothing in this Act shall
be construed to--
(1) require any private property owner to allow public
access (including Federal, State, or local government access)
to such private property; or
(2) modify any provision of Federal, State, or local law
with regard to public access to or use of private property.
(b) Liability.--Designation of the Heritage Area shall not
be considered to create any liability, or to have any effect
on any liability under any other law, of any private property
owner with respect to any persons injured on that private
property.
(c) Participation of Private Property Owners in Heritage
Area.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require the
owner of any private property located within the boundaries
of the Heritage Area to participate in or be associated with
the Heritage Area.
SEC. 8. EFFECT OF ACT.
Nothing in this Act or in establishment of the Heritage
Area--
(1) grants any Federal agency regulatory authority over any
interest in the Heritage Area, unless cooperatively agreed on
by all involved parties;
(2) modifies, enlarges, or diminishes any authority of the
Federal Government or a State or local government to regulate
any use of land as provided for by law (including
regulations) in existence on the date of enactment of this
Act;
(3) grants any power of zoning or land use to the local
coordinating entity;
(4) imposes any environmental, occupational, safety, or
other rule, standard, or permitting process that is different
from those in effect on the date of enactment of this Act
that would be applicable had the Heritage Area not been
established;
(5)(A) imposes any change in Federal environmental quality
standards; or
(B) authorizes designation of any portion of the Heritage
Area that is subject to part C of title I of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7470 et seq.) as class 1 for the purposes of
that part solely by reason of the establishment of the
Heritage Area;
(6) authorizes any Federal or State agency to impose more
restrictive water use designations, or water quality
standards on uses of or discharges to, waters of the United
States or waters of the State within or adjacent to the
Heritage Area solely by reason of the establishment of the
Heritage Area;
(7) abridges, restricts, or alters any applicable rule,
standard, or review procedure for permitting of facilities
within or adjacent to the Heritage Area; or
(8) affects the continuing use and operation, where located
on the date of enactment of this Act, of any public utility
or common carrier.
SEC. 9. REPORTS.
For any year in which Federal funds have been made
available under this Act, the local coordinating entity shall
submit to the Secretary a report that describes--
(1) the accomplishments of the local coordinating entity;
and
(2) the expenses and income of the local coordinating
entity.
SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this Act $10,000,000, of which not more than
$1,000,000 shall be made available for any fiscal year.
(b) Cost-Sharing Requirement.--The Federal share of the
total cost of any activity assisted under this Act shall be
not more than 50 percent.
SEC. 11. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.
The authority of the Secretary to provide assistance to the
local coordinating entity under this Act terminates on the
date that is 15 years after the date of enactment of this
Act.
______
By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself and Mr. Vitter):
S. 205. A bill to authorize the American Battle Monuments Commission
to establish in the State of Louisiana a memorial to honor the Buffalo
Soldiers; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, One Hundred and Thirty Nine years ago,
before the term Homeland Security was even coined, a group of men
devoted themselves to securing the frontiers of this Nation. They
protected Americans in their homes; they deterred hostile invaders, and
they secured the blessings of liberty for a young country. Even more
remarkable, they secured these blessings for others, while they could
not fully enjoy them themselves.
I am referring to the Buffalo Soldiers. These brave men instituted a
tradition of professional military service for African Americans that
spans the greater part of American history. African American military
service is as old as our nation. There were black soldiers during the
revolution, a unit of free black men played a pivotal role in the
Battle of New Orleans, and the exploits of African Americans during the
Civil War have been captured in novels and on film. However, it was not
until the Army Reorganization Act of 1866 that soldiering and service
to country became a realistic option for African Americans seeking to
improve their quality of life. In so doing, they raised the bar of
freedom, and revealed the injustice of preventing the defenders of
democracy from fully participating in it.
The City of New Orleans, and the State of Louisiana have a rich
history. They have given more than their fair share of sons to the
service of our Nation. Much of this history is commemorated throughout
the State. Yet, these great sons of New Orleans remain unacknowledged
in their home. For in Louisiana's great military tradition, surely one
of its greatest military contributions were the 9th Cavalry Regiment
and the 25th Infantry Regiment.
These two forces, recruited and organized in New Orleans, represent
half of all the units of buffalo soldiers. The 9th Cavalry alone
constituted 10% of all the American cavalry. Their list of adversaries
reads like a who's who of the Old West--Geronimo, Sitting Bull, Poncho
Villa. In movies, when settlers encounter Apaches, the cavalry always
comes to the rescue. Yet how many times were the cavalry that rode over
the horizon African American? Of course, the reality is that the
Buffalo Soldiers comprised some of our nations most capable and loyal
troops. Despite suffering the worst deprivations known to any American
soldiers of the period, they had the lowest desertion rates in the
Army. The 9th Cavalry was awarded 10 Congressional Medals of Honor,
including a native Louisianan, Sgt. Emanuel Stance--a farmer from
Carroll Parish.
For these reasons, I am offering legislation today along with Senator
Vitter that would authorize the creation of a suitable memorial in New
Orleans for these gallant soldiers. There is an excellent statue to the
Buffalo Soldiers at Fort Leavenworth, KS. It commemorates the 10th
Cavalry Regiment stationed there. However, I believe that these men
deserve to be recognized in their home city. Furthermore, it should be
in an a location where thousands of visitors will have the opportunity
to come to appreciate the legacy of the Buffalo Soldiers. I believe
that the City of New Orleans is the perfect location.
[[Page S653]]
We have made a number of changes to this legislation after
consultations with the American Battle Monuments Commission. I believe
these changes should address any concerns that they have expressed.
Furthermore, we have an able and dedicated organization of individuals
in the state who desperately want to see this project to completion.
Last year, I had the pleasure of being in New Orleans with another of
this Nation's great military heroes, Senator Daniel Inouye. We
addressed a group of distinguished veterans from all around the state.
Among them was George Jones, President of the Greater New Orleans
Chapter of the Buffalo Soldiers Association. They have been working
with Eddie Dixon, the artist for the beautiful Fort Leavenworth
statute, to develop an appropriate memorial in the City of New Orleans
for over a decade. This bill will fulfill that noble ambition.
This Nation has sadly found the need to say thank you to its
servicemen and women after the fact on more than one occasion.
Unfortunately, this is another. We are fortunate to have living
memories of the 9th and 10th Cavalry Regiments today. The regiments
were not disbanded until the conclusion of World War Two, where they
served with distinction. We should take this opportunity to honor these
veterans, and in so doing, honor the principles of liberty, freedom and
democracy for which they fought and sacrificed. They have given so much
to their nation, we owe them this public expression of gratitude.
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. 205
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 ``Buffalo Soldiers
Commemoration Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF BUFFALO SOLDIERS MEMORIAL.
(a) Authorization.--The American Battle Monuments
Commission is authorized to establish a memorial to honor the
Buffalo Soldiers in or around the City of New Orleans on land
donated for such purpose or on Federal land with the consent
of the appropriate land manager.
(b) Contributions.--The Commission shall solicit and accept
contributions for the construction and maintenance of the
memorial.
(c) Cooperative Agreements.--The Commission may enter into
a cooperative agreement with a private or public entity for
the purpose of fundraising for the construction and
maintenance of the memorial.
(d) Maintenance Agreement.--Prior to beginning construction
of the memorial, the Commission shall enter into an agreement
with an appropriate public or private entity to provide for
the permanent maintenance of the memorial and shall have
sufficient funds, or assurance that it will receive
sufficient funds, to complete the memorial.
SEC. 3. BUFFALO SOLDIERS MEMORIAL ACCOUNT.
(a) Establishment.--The Commission shall maintain an escrow
account (``account'') to pay expenses incurred in
constructing the memorial.
(b) Deposits Into the Account.--The Commission shall
deposit into the account any principal and interest by the
United States that the Chairman determines has a suitable
maturity.
(c) Use of Account.--Amounts in the account, including
proceeds of any investments, may be used to pay expenses
incurred in establishing the memorial. After construction of
the memorial amounts in the account shall be transferred by
the Commission to the entity providing for permanent
maintenance of the memorial under such terms and conditions
as the Commission determines will ensure the proper use and
accounting of the amounts.
SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out this Act.
______
By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself, Mr. Craig, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Smith):
S. 206. A bill to designate the Ice Age Floods National Geologic
Trail, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Ice Age
Floods National Geologic Trail Designation Act of 2005''. I am thankful
that Senator Larry Craig of Idaho will again be the lead Republican
cosponsor and pleased to also be joined by the Senior Senator from
Washington, (Mrs. Murray), as well as Senator from Oregon, (Mr. Smith).
Some 12,000 to 17,000 years ago, at the end of the Ice Age, a series
of floods swept across the Pacific Northwest. These epic floods
fundamentally changed the geography and way of life in the Pacific
Northwest. The coulees, buttes, boulder fields, lakes, ridges and
gravel bars they left behind still define the unique landscape of our
State and our region today.
Creating a National Park Service trail to recognize and celebrate how
these floods literally shaped the face of our State will provide an
unparalleled educational resource for Washingtonians and visitors from
across the country. It will also spur economic development and create
jobs in local communities across Eastern and Central Washington.
I look forward to working with my other members of the Pacific
Northwest congressional delegation, as well as my colleagues in the
Senate, to ensure swift passage of this important legislation. 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. 206
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 ``Ice Age Floods National
Geologic Trail Designation Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) at the end of the last Ice Age, some 12,000 to 17,000
years ago, a series of cataclysmic floods occurred in what is
now the northwest region of the United States, leaving a
lasting mark of dramatic and distinguishing features on the
landscape of parts of the States of Montana, Idaho,
Washington and Oregon;
(2) geological features that have exceptional value and
quality to illustrate and interpret this extraordinary
natural phenomenon are present on Federal, State, tribal,
county, municipal, and private land in the region; and
(3) in 2001, a joint study team headed by the National Park
Service that included about 70 members from public and
private entities completed a study endorsing the
establishment of an Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail--
(A) to recognize the national significance of this
phenomenon; and
(B) to coordinate public and private sector entities in the
presentation of the story of the Ice Age floods.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to designate the
Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail in the States of
Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon, enabling the public
to view, experience, and learn about the features and story
of the Ice Age floods through the collaborative efforts of
public and private entities.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Ice age floods; floods.--The term ``Ice Age floods'' or
``floods'' means the cataclysmic floods that occurred in what
is now the northwestern United States during the last Ice Age
from massive, rapid and recurring drainage of Glacial Lake in
Missoula, Montana.
(2) Plan.--The term ``plan'' means the cooperative
management and interpretation plan authorized under section
5(f).
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(4) Trail.--The term ``Trail'' means the Ice Age Floods
National Geologic Trail designated by section 4(a).
SEC. 4. ICE AGE FLOODS NATIONAL GEOLOGIC TRAIL.
(a) Designation.--In order to provide for public
appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of the nationally
significant natural and cultural features of the Ice Age
floods and to promote collaborative efforts for
interpretation and education among public and private
entities located along the pathways of the floods, there is
designated the Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail.
(b) Location.--
(1) Map.--The route of the Trail shall be generally
depicted on the map entitled ``Ice Age Floods National
Geologic Trail,'' numbered _____, and dated _____.
(2) Route.--The route shall generally follow public roads
and highways--
(A) from the vicinity of Missoula in western Montana;
(B) across northern Idaho;
(C) through eastern and southern sections of Washington;
(D) across northern Oregon in the vicinity of the
Willamette Valley and the Columbia River; and
(E) to the Pacific Ocean.
(3) Revision.--The Secretary may revise the map by
publication in the Federal Register of a notice of
availability of a new map as part of the plan.
(c) Map Availability.--Any map referred to in subsection
(b) shall be on file and available for public inspection in
the appropriate offices of the National Park Service.
SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the Director
of the National Park Service, shall administer the Trail in
accordance with this Act.
[[Page S654]]
(b) Trail Management Office.--In order for the National
Park Service to manage the Trail and coordinate Trail
activities with other public agencies and private entities,
the Secretary may establish and operate a trail management
office within the vicinity of the Trail.
(c) Land Acquisition.--
(1) In general.--If the acquisition is consistent with the
plan, the Secretary may acquire land, in a quantity not to
exceed 25 acres, for administrative and public information
purposes to facilitate the geographic diversity of the Trail
throughout the States of Montana, Idaho, Washington, and
Oregon.
(2) Methods.--
(A) Private land.--Private land may be acquired from a
willing seller under this Act only by donation, purchase with
donated or appropriated funds, or exchange.
(B) Non-federal public land.--Non-Federal public land may
be acquired from a willing seller under this Act--
(i) only by donation or exchange; and
(ii) after consultation with the affected unit of local
government.
(d) Interpretive Facilities.--The Secretary may plan,
design, and construct interpretive facilities for sites
associated with the Trail if the facilities are constructed
in partnership with State, local, tribal, or non-profit
entities and are consistent with the plan.
(e) Interagency Technical Committee.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish an
interagency technical committee to advise the trail
management office on the technical planning for the
development of the plan.
(2) Composition.--The committee--
(A) shall include--
(i) representatives from Federal, State, local, and tribal
agencies with interests in the floods; and
(ii) representatives from the Ice Age Floods Institute; and
(B) may include private property owners, business owners,
and nonprofit organizations.
(f) Management Plan.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after funds are
made available to carry out this Act under section 6, the
Secretary shall prepare a cooperative management and
interpretation plan for the Trail.
(2) Consultation.--The Secretary shall prepare the plan in
consultation with--
(A) State, local, and tribal governments;
(B) the Ice Age Floods Institute;
(C) private property owners; and
(D) other interested parties.
(3) Contents.--The plan shall--
(A) confirm and, if appropriate, expand on the inventory of
features of the floods contained in the National Park Service
study entitled ``Ice Age Floods, Study of Alternatives and
Environmental Assessment'' (February 2001) by--
(i) locating features more accurately;
(ii) improving the description of features; and
(iii) reevaluating the features in terms of their
interpretive potential;
(B) review and, if appropriate, modify the map of the Trail
referred to in section 4(b);
(C) describe strategies for the coordinated development of
the Trail, including an interpretive plan for facilities,
waysides, roadside pullouts, exhibits, media, and programs
that present the story of the floods to the public
effectively; and
(D) identify potential partnering opportunities in the
development of interpretive facilities and educational
programs to educate the public about the story of the floods.
(g) Cooperative Management.--
(1) In general.--In order to facilitate the development of
coordinated interpretation, education, resource stewardship,
visitor facility development and operation, and scientific
research associated with the Trail and to promote more
efficient administration of the sites associated with the
Trail, the Secretary may enter into cooperative management
agreements with appropriate officials in the States of
Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon in accordance with the
authority provided for units of the National Park System
under section 3(l) of Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-2(l)).
(2) Unit of national park system.--For purposes of this
subsection, the Trail shall be considered a unit of the
National Park System.
(h) Cooperative Agreements.--The Secretary may enter into
cooperative agreements with public or private entities to
carry out this Act.
(i) Effect on Private Property Rights.--Nothing in this
Act--
(1) requires any private property owner to allow public
access (including Federal, State, or local government access)
to private property; or
(2) modifies any provision of Federal, State, or local law
with respect to public access to or use of private land.
(j) Liability.--Designation of the Trail by section 4(a)
does not create any liability for, or affect any liability
under any law of, any private property owner with respect to
any person injured on the private property.
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this Act, of which not more than
$500,000 may be used for each fiscal year for the
administration of the Trail.
______
By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself and Mr. Vitter):
S. 207. A bill to adjust the boundary of the Barataria Preserve Unit
of the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve in the State
of Louisiana, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I rise, along with Senator Vitter,
to introduce the Jean Lafitte National Historic Park and Preserve
Boundary Adjustment Act of 2005. This bill was passed unanimously by
the Senate during the 108th Congress.
The Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve was
established in 1978 to preserve for present and future generations
significant examples of the rich natural and cultural resources of
Louisiana's Mississippi delta region. The park seeks to illustrate the
influence of environment and history on the development of a unique
regional culture. It is named for Jean Lafitte who was a pirate, or
privateer as he like to be called, that fought alongside U.S. forces in
the Battle of New Orleans at the end of the War of 1812. The park
consists of six physically separate sites and a park headquarters
located in New Orleans. The sites in Lafayette, Thibodaux and Eunice
interpret the Acadian culture of the area. The Barataria Preserve, in
Marrero, interprets the natural and cultural history of the uplands,
swamps and marshlands of the region. Six miles southeast of New Orleans
is the Chalmette Battlefield and National Cemetery, site of the 1815
Battle of New Orleans and the final resting place for soldiers from the
Civil War, Spanish-American War, World Wars I and II and Vietnam. The
park's visitor center, which is located in the historic French Quarter,
interprets the history of New Orleans and diverse cultures of
Mississippi delta region.
It is the Barataria site that is the focus of our attention today.
The Bill before us would merely adjust the boundary of the Barataria
preserve unit of Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve and
by doing so protect a crucial component of one of the largest and most
productive expanses of coastal wetlands in North America--coastal
Louisiana or as they are known: America's Wetlands. The Barataria
preserve is the only part of our coastal wetlands preserved in the
National Park System. As we strive to find ways to stem the tide of
coastal erosion in Louisiana, and bring about the restoration of
wetlands already lost, it is equally important that we protect those
areas that remain such as the Barataria preserve so that Americans can
experience, first hand, the amazing beauty and fertility of Louisiana's
bountiful coastal wetlands--the most threatened wetland ecosystem in
the country--disappearing at a rate of 25 to 35 square miles a year.
Located on the outskirts of New Orleans, where it is accessible not
only to the people of New Orleans but also to the millions of tourists
from around the world that visit New Orleans and south Louisiana,
Barataria serves as an interpretive experience of this greatest of
coastal wetlands.
This bill expands this national treasure without any cost to the
Federal Government while preserving private property rights. It simply
transfers to the Park over 3,000 acres of wetlands already in Federal
ownership, already paid for by the American people. These lands, which
are adjacent to the Preserve, became Federal as a result of the
settlement by the Justice Department of two lawsuits brought by the
landowners against Federal agencies. However, because these acres are
not managed by the park, they are presently unavailable for public use.
An Act of Congress is necessary to allow inclusion of these lands into
a new boundary.
My bill does just that, opening these lands for canoeing, wildlife
viewing, exploration, fishing, and hunting, all under the management
and protection of the park service. The bill grants long-term
protection to crucial resources that the Park Service has found
suitable and feasible for inclusion within a new boundary through a
1996 boundary study.
The Park is immediately adjacent to the developed areas of the
Westbank of Jefferson Parish along much of its boundary while the
Barataria unit in particular is right next door to a hurricane levee.
Making more of the park boundary contiguous with the levee
[[Page S655]]
that divides developed land from undeveloped wetlands enhances
opportunities for direct cooperation between these communities and the
Park for management of shared concerns. These concerns include the
routing of storm-water run-off; the discharge of treated sewage;
estuarine water quality and its effects on fisheries and recreational
uses; wetland restoration and mitigation; and a number of other
problems and opportunities. The Park has worked with Jefferson Parish
in seeking creative solutions to these problems and will continue to do
so. The addition of these properties will only enhance their chances
for success.
It is for all of these reasons that I am hopeful the Senate can
approve of this measure in the near future. The expansion we seek in
this Bill benefits us today as well as tomorrow.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 207
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 ``Jean Lafitte National
Historical Park and Preserve Boundary Adjustment Act of
2005''.
SEC. 2. JEAN LAFITTE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK AND PRESERVE
BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.
(a) In General.--Section 901 of the National Parks and
Recreation Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 230) is amended in the
second sentence by striking ``twenty thousand acres generally
depicted on the map entitled `Barataria Marsh Unit-Jean
Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve' numbered
90,000B and dated April 1978,'' and inserting ``23,000 acres
generally depicted on the map entitled `Boundary Map,
Barataria Preserve Unit, Jean Lafitte National Historical
Park and Preserve', numbered 467/80100, and dated August
2002,''.
(b) Acquisition of Land.--Section 902 of the National Parks
and Recreation Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 230a) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``(a) Within the'' and all that follows
through the first sentence and inserting the following:
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Barataria preserve unit.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary may acquire any land,
water, and interests in land and water within the boundary of
the Barataria Preserve Unit, as depicted on the map described
in section 901, by donation, purchase with donated or
appropriated funds, transfer from any other Federal agency,
or exchange.
``(B) Limitations.--
``(i) In general.--With respect to the areas on the map
identified as `Bayou aux Carpes Addition' and `CIT Tract
Addition'--
``(I) any Federal land acquired in the areas shall be
transferred without consideration to the administrative
jurisdiction of the National Park Service; and
``(II) any private land in the areas may be acquired by the
Secretary only with the consent of the owner of the land.
``(ii) Easements.--Any Federal land in the area identified
on the map as `CIT Tract Addition' that is transferred under
clause (i)(I) shall be subject to any easements that have
been agreed to by the Secretary and the Secretary of the
Army.'';
(B) in the second sentence, by striking ``The Secretary may
also'' and inserting the following:
``(2) French quarter.--The Secretary may'';
(C) in the third sentence, by striking ``Lands, waters, and
interests therein'' and inserting the following:
``(3) Acquisition of state land.--Land, water, and
interests in land and water''; and
(D) in the fourth sentence, by striking ``In acquiring''
and inserting the following:
``(4) Acquisition of oil and gas rights.--In acquiring'';
(2) by striking subsections (b) through (f) and inserting
the following:
``(b) Resource Protection.--With respect to the land,
water, and interests in land and water of the Barataria
Preserve Unit, the Secretary shall preserve and protect--
``(1) fresh water drainage patterns;
``(2) vegetative cover;
``(3) the integrity of ecological and biological systems;
and
``(4) water and air quality.''; and
(3) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (c).
(c) Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping.--Section 905 of the
National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 230d) is
amended in the first sentence by striking ``within the core
area and on those lands acquired by the Secretary pursuant to
section 902(c) of this title, he'' and inserting ``the
Secretary''.
(d) Administration.--Section 906 of the National Parks and
Recreation Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 230e) is amended--
(1) by striking the first sentence; and
(2) in the second sentence, by striking ``Pending such
establishment and thereafter the'' and inserting ``The''.
SEC. 3. REFERENCES IN LAW.
(a) In General.--Any reference in a law (including
regulations), map, document, paper, or other record of the
United States--
(1) to the Barataria Marsh Unit shall be considered to be a
reference to the Barataria Preserve Unit; or
(2) to the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park shall be
considered to be a reference to the Jean Lafitte National
Historical Park and Preserve.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Title IX of the National Parks
and Recreation Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 230 et seq.) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``Barataria Marsh Unit'' each place it
appears and inserting ``Barataria Preserve Unit''; and
(2) by striking ``Jean Lafitte National Historical Park''
each place it appears and inserting ``Jean Lafitte National
Historical Park and Preserve''.
______
By Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. DeWine, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr.
Voinovich):
S. 208. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
direct the Great Lakes National Program Office of the Environmental
Protection Agency to develop, implement, monitor, and report on a
series of indicators of water quality and related environmental factors
in the Great Lakes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, my colleagues Senators DeWine and Voinovich
of Ohio, Senator Stabenow of Michigan, and I are pleased to introduce
the Great Lakes Water Quality Indicators and Monitoring Act. The bill
directs the Environmental Protection Agency to develop indicators of
Great Lakes water quality and related environmental factors and a
comprehensive network to monitor those indicators. This bill will
result in science-based assessments of the health of the Great Lakes.
The Great Lakes are a treasured natural resource. The Great Lakes
contain almost 20% of the world's fresh water, and millions of people
in the Great Lakes basin rely on the lakes for drinking water, for
economic livelihoods such as fishing and shipping, and for recreational
opportunities, including swimming and boating. Unfortunately, the Great
Lakes have suffered from decades of toxic discharges, urban and
agricultural runoff, and other environmental challenges. We've made
some progress in improving water quality, but we know we have a long
way to go.
The stewards of the lakes--at the Federal, State, and local levels--
use a variety of methods to determine the health of the Great Lakes and
whether they are improving. For example, the EPA and the Fish and
Wildlife Service monitor the accumulation of chemicals in Great Lakes
fish. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration detects
changes in the ecosystem from space-based satellites and waterborne
buoys. The U.S. Geological Survey samples stream flow and quality, and
the States inspect for compliance with water quality standards. These
efforts to collect scientific data are largely voluntary and suffer
from a lack of funding and coordination. Additionally, they use
inconsistent methods that often produce incompatible results.
In 2004, the General Accounting Office released a report entitled
Great Lakes: An Overall Strategy and Indicators for Measuring Progress
are Needed to Better Achieve Restoration Goals. The GAO looked at
almost 200 Federal and State programs and found that a lack of
coordination, poorly defined goals, and insufficient data make it
difficult to evaluate the success of these programs. The GAO found that
there are no data collected regularly throughout the Great Lakes, and
that the existing data are inadequate to determine whether water
quality and other environmental conditions are improving.
In 1990, I authored the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act, which
strengthened the water quality standards in the Great Lakes region. In
2002, Congress passed the Great Lakes Legacy Act, to speed the cleanup
of contaminated bottom sediment. Today, we need to establish a way to
evaluate the impact of these and similar measures. To show results, we
need science-based indicators of water quality and related
environmental factors, and we need to monitor those indicators
regularly throughout the ecosystem.
GAO recommends that EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office lead an
[[Page S656]]
effort to develop indicators and a monitoring network. Our bill gives
that office the mandate to work with other Federal agencies and Canada
to identify and measure water quality and other environmental factors
on a regular basis. The initial set of data collected through this
network will serve as a benchmark against which to measure future
improvements. Those measurements will help us make decisions on how to
steer future restoration efforts. With a clear picture of how the Great
Lakes are changing, we can change course when needed and spend public
funds on the most effective measures to meet the most pressing demands.
This bill serves a second purpose--it provides EPA with dedicated
funding to make sure that data collection can begin in a timely manner
and be carried out consistently and comprehensively.
I encourage my colleagues to support this bill and help speed its
passage.
______
By Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. Biden, and Mr. Hagel):
S. 209. A bill to build operational readiness in civilian agencies,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am re-introducing today a bill that was
on the legislative calendar of the 108th Congress when it adjourned in
December. The Stabilization and Reconstruction Civilian Management Act
is intended to build operational readiness in the civilian agencies to
improve our nation's capacity to carry out post-conflict stabilization
and reconstruction missions.
Until very recently, the concept of ``nation building'' was
considered to be pejorative by many Members of Congress and government
officials. The foreign policy orthodoxy of both parties was skeptical
of missions that entailed long-term peacekeeping or stabilization
commitments. If military force was necessary, most policymakers
believed it should be used only for relatively brief periods followed
by rapid withdrawal.
But experience has taught us that this approach rarely can be
accommodated if we are serious about protecting our own security in an
age of terrorism. We have seen how terrorists can exploit nations
afflicted by lawlessness and desperate circumstances. They seek out
such places to establish training camps, recruit new members, and tap
into a global black market in weapons technology. If we are to deny
sanctuaries to terrorists, we must be involved in post-conflict
stabilization.
With this in mind, the Foreign Relations Committee took up the issue
of how best to organize and prepare for post-conflict missions. Well
over a year ago, we held our first bipartisan roundtable that brought
together some of the best minds from inside and outside of government
to consider this issue. From this process, we developed the
Stabilization and Reconstruction Civilian Management Act of 2004. I
introduced this legislation with Senators Biden and Hagel, and the
Committee passed it unanimously. The purpose of our bill is to
establish a more robust civilian capability to respond quickly and
effectively to post-conflict situations or other complex emergencies.
The bill puts the State Department at the center of the civilian
reconstruction and stabilization effort, while coordination between
State and Defense would continue at the NSC level.
The Defense Science Board (DSB), which recently recommended a similar
strengthening of stabilization and reconstruction capacity in the
Defense Department, endorsed our legislation. On January 26, I
introduced S. 192, new legislation that took the DSB recommendations
and provided the executive branch the necessary authorities to carry
them out. It calls upon the Secretary of Defense to take immediate
action to strengthen the role and capabilities of the Department of
Defense for carrying out stabilization and reconstruction activities as
well as to support the development of core competencies in other
departments and agencies, principally the Department of State. The bill
has been referred to the Senate Armed Service Committee for that
Committee's consideration.
While recognizing the critical challenges that our military has
undertaken with skill and courage in both Afghanistan and Iraq, we must
acknowledge that certain non-security missions will be better served in
the future by a more organized civilian response. Our post-conflict
efforts frequently have had a higher than necessary military profile.
This is not the result of a Pentagon power grab or institutional
fights. Rather, the military has led post-conflict operations primarily
because it is the only agency capable of mobilizing sufficient
personnel and resources for these tasks. As a consequence, military
resources have been stretched and deployments of military personnel
have been extended beyond expectations. If we can improve the
capabilities of the civilian agencies, they can take over many of the
non-security missions that have burdened the military.
In re-introducing the Stabilization and Reconstruction Civilian
Management Act'' in the 109th Congress, I am well aware of the impact
it has already had on both the debate on this issue and developments to
date. In fact, some initiatives contained in the legislation have moved
forward without its having been enacted. My Senate colleagues on the
Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee agreed with the need to
provide an emergency conflict response fund for stabilization and
reconstruction crises. And the Commerce, Justice, State appropriators
in both the Senate and the House agreed with the need to establish a
new office at the State Department to take the lead in organizing our
civilian efforts. Indeed, an Office of Reconstruction and Stabilization
has now been organized and a highly capable coordinator named. At her
confirmation hearings, Dr. Rice demonstrated detailed knowledge of the
Office and its work. I am confidant that she has already embraced the
Department's role as a core mission and will work to support the Office
with appropriate funding and the kind of Department-wide backing and
support from management that it will need to do its job.
So why continue to pursue the legislation? It is still important to
seek enactment because the legislation provides a permanent basis in
law for the established office as well as new authorities that the
Department will need to be successful.
The Bush Administration's action on this issue demonstrates its
ability to recalibrate policy and organization to address a changing
world. We know that the President will continue to provide leadership
in organizing the U.S. government for this mission. As demonstrated by
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote of 19-0, and by actions
taken by the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
State and the Judiciary and the Senate Subcommittee on Foreign
Operations, there is significant support in the Congress for his work
and for the foresight he is already demonstrating.
The new Office, headed by Carlos Pascual, is doing a government-wide
inventory of the civilian assets that might be available for
stabilization and reconstruction tasks. It is also pursuing an idea
proposed in our bill of a Readiness Reserve to enable rapid
mobilization of post-conflict stabilization personnel. It will work
closely with the Secretary to assist in the coordination of policy, the
preparation and management of response, and in developing cooperative
arrangements with foreign countries, international and regional
organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and private sector
organizations.
I am hopeful that the Office also will develop the concept of a 250-
person active duty Response Readiness Corps that is contained in the
legislation. In Army terms, that is less than a small battalion of
well-trained people--a modest but vigorous force-multiplier that would
greatly improve our nation's stabilization capacity. This Corps would
be composed of State Department and USAID employees who have the
experience and technical skills to manage stabilization and
reconstruction tasks in a hostile environment.
Secretary Rice has been one of the most enthusiastic supporters of
enhancing standing civilian capacity to respond to post conflict
situations. In answer to one of my questions during the confirmation
process, she said: ``Creating a strong U.S. Government stabilization
and reconstruction capacity is an Administration national security
priority.''
[[Page S657]]
She asserted that ``experience has shown that we must have the
capacity to manage 2 to 3 stabilization and reconstruction operations
concurrently. That means [we need] staff in Washington and in the field
to manage and deliver quality programs.''
Dr. Rice is prepared to make the State Department an effective inter-
agency leader as it should be--in post-conflict operations. I look
forward to working closely with her on this effort. I consider this new
mission to be one of the most important long-term defenses that the
State Department can mount against future acts of terrorism.
______
By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska,
Mr. Burr, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Hagel, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Lugar, Mr.
Nelson of Florida, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Levin, Ms.
Landrieu, Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Inouye, and
Mr. Bennett):
S. 211. A bill to facilitate nationwide availability of 2-1-1
telephone service for information and referral on human services,
volunteer services, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the calling
for a 2-1-1 Act with my colleague Senator Elizabeth Dole. This bill
will make an invaluable difference for the citizens of New York and the
country.
Just last week I was in Rochester helping to launch a 2-1-1 call
center that will serve the citizens of the Finger Lakes region of New
York. This call center will provide a simple, efficient, and convenient
way for individuals to obtain vital information about government
services. It is the first step in an ambitious plan to provide 365 day,
24 hour 2-1-1 service throughout all of New York, and ultimately, the
entire country.
The Calling for 2-1-1 Act, which I am introducing today, will create
at least one 2-1-1 call center just like the one in Rochester in every
state in the country, and will link every regional call center together
to ensure Statewide coverage. Last Congress, 31 members of the Senate
and 149 members of the House of Representatives co-sponsored the
Calling for 2-1-1 Act. In the 109th, we are working to appeal to even
more.
The best part of the 2-1-1 system is that it is equally available to
everyone. From the mother whose child is about to go off to war, to the
veteran returning from service, 2-1-1 will help people access the
information they need when they need it. It helps teens who are in
crisis and young mothers who have nowhere else to turn. Single mothers
trying to find a job in a tough economy, frail senior citizens who need
help with transportation but have no family or friends to call, and
substance-abusing teens who in a moment of lucidity decide to seek a
way out can all find what they need by dialing 2-1-1.
This number also helps people who want to give back to their
communities. 2-1-1 provides lots of information about volunteer
opportunities and helps direct people who want to give donations. At
times of disaster, like the recent tsunami, 2-1-1 will be there to help
get everyone the information they need to make sure their donations are
directed effectively.
2-1-1 is not only good for New Yorkers; it is also good for our
Nation's bottom line. 2-1-1 saves money because it eliminates
duplicative services. The service will replace the existing maze of
individual numbers for individual services: hotlines for shelter from
abusive spouses, vaccinations for children, or information about where
to obtain hospice services for ailing parents or loved ones. 2-1-1 will
be a ``one-stop shop'' for all of these services. According to a recent
study by the Ray Marshall Center for the Study of Human Resources at
the University of Texas' Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, 2-
1-1 call centers can save as much as $130 million in the first year of
operation and as much as $1.1 billion over ten years.
I would add that 2-1-1 saves lives. Every time someone calls 9-1-1
with a non-emergency call, the operators spend time with that caller
that they could be spending dealing with a true emergency. 2-1-1 will
replace 9-1-1 as the non-emergency point of reference because it is so
easy to recall.
We learned on September 11th how important 2-1-1 can be. In the
immediate aftermath of the disaster, most people did not know where to
turn for information about their loved ones. Fortunately for those who
knew about it, 2-1-1 was already operating in Connecticut during
September 11th, and it was critical in helping identify the whereabouts
of victims, connecting frightened children with their parents,
providing information on terrorist suspects, and linking ready
volunteers with coordinated efforts and victims with necessary mental
and physical health services. 2-1-1 provided locations of vigils and
support groups, and information on bioterrorism for those concerned
about future attacks.
As time went by, many people needed help getting back on their feet.
More than 100,000 people lost their jobs. Close to 2,000 families
applied for housing assistance because they couldn't pay their rent or
mortgage. 90,000 people developed symptoms of post-traumatic stress
disorder or clinical depression within eight weeks of the attacks.
Another 34,000 people met the criteria for both diagnoses. And 2-1-1
was there to help in Connecticut.
It wasn't available in far too many other areas, however. In fact, a
Brookings Institution and Urban Institute study of the aftermath of
September 11th found that many dislocated workers struggled to obtain
available assistance. People ``found it difficult to connect with
resources due to a social-services infrastructure that does not support
a simple and efficient method for people to learn about and access
services and for agencies to coordinate their activities.''
And that is what 2-1-1 is all about. It provides a single, efficient,
coordinated way for people who need help to connect with those who can
provide it.
The Federal Communications Commission laid the groundwork for a 2-1-1
number in 2000 when it directed that telephone number to be reserved
for information and referral to social and human-services agencies. The
2-1-1 system opens the way to a user-friendly social-services network,
by providing an easy-to-remember and universally available phone number
that links individuals and families in need to the appropriate non-
profit and government agencies.
In Rochester, New York and throughout the Finger Lakes, 2-1-1 will do
just that. Whatever the need, 2-1-1 can help point you in the right
direction. That is why I am so pleased to be introducing this
legislation today, and why I am so optimistic that this will be an
important first step in the road to bringing 2-1-1 to communities
throughout the Empire State and the entire U.S.A. Thank you.
______
By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
S. 212. A bill to amend the Valles Caldera Preservation Act to
improve the preservation of the Valles Caldera, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, in 2000 Congress established the Valles
Caldera National Preserve, which is composed of approximately 89,000
acres of spectacular land in northern New Mexico. The Preserve was
created to protect and preserve the region's values and to provide the
public with opportunities for the multiple use and sustained yield of
its resources.
Over the past 5 years, we have become aware of some simple changes in
Federal policy that can be made to allow the Valles Caldera Trust and
U.S. Forest Service to better address the issues facing the Valles
Caldera Preserve. The bill that Senator Bingaman and I introduce today
recognizes the need for those policy changes.
The bill does the following: (1) Eliminates the ``willing seller
basis'' so the Secretary of Agriculture can purchase the outstanding
mineral interests of the Valles Caldera; (2) requires the Valles
Caldera Trust to better manage its obligations and expenditures; (3)
expands the category of people who can solicit and accept donations on
the Trust's behalf; (4) allows monies received from claims relating to
the Preserve to be used for costs incurred by the Trust; (5) provides a
rate of compensation for the chairman of the Trust; (6) authorizes the
Trust to dispose of marketable renewable resources; and (7) requires
the Secretary
[[Page S658]]
of Agriculture to develop a fire safety plan for the Preserve.
These are not vast changes; nor should they be controversial. They
will, however, make an important difference to one of New Mexico's most
pristine wilderness areas that is appreciated by New Mexico's visitors
and natives alike.
Because of the difference this legislation will make in New Mexico, I
hope my colleagues will join with Senator Bingaman and me in approving
the Valles Caldera Preservation Act of 2005.
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. 212
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 ``Valles Caldera Preservation
Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE VALLES CALDERA PRESERVATION ACT.
(a) Acquisition of Outstanding Mineral Interests.--Section
104(e) of the Valles Caldera Preservation Act (16 U.S.C.
698v-2(e)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``The acquisition'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--The acquisition'';
(2) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the
following:
``(2) Acquisition.--The Secretary'';
(3) by striking ``on a willing seller basis'';
(4) by striking ``Any such'' and inserting the following:
``(3) Administration.--Any such''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Available funds.--Any such interests shall be
acquired with available funds.
``(5) Declaration of taking.--
``(A) In general.--If negotiations to acquire the interests
are unsuccessful by the date that is 60 days after the date
of enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall acquire
the interests pursuant to section 3114 of title 40, United
States Code.
``(B) Source of funds.--Any difference between the sum of
money estimated to be just compensation by the Secretary and
the amount awarded shall be paid from the permanent judgment
appropriation under section 1304 of title 31, United States
Code.''.
(b) Obligations and Expenditures.--Section 106(e) of the
Valles Caldera Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 698v-4(e)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Obligations and expenditures.--Subject to the laws
applicable to Government corporations, the Trust shall
determine--
``(A) the character of, and the necessity for, any
obligations and expenditures of the Trust; and
``(B) the manner in which obligations and expenditures
shall be incurred, allowed, and paid.''.
(c) Solicitation of Donations.--Section 106(g) of the
Valles Caldera Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 698v-4(g)) is
amended by striking ``The Trust may solicit'' and inserting
``The members of the Board of Trustees, the executive
director, and 1 additional employee of the Trust in an
executive position designated by the Board of Trustees or the
executive director may solicit''.
(d) Use of Proceeds.--Section 106(h)(1) of the Valles
Caldera Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 698v-4(h)(1)) is amended
by striking ``subsection (g)'' and inserting ``subsection
(g), from claims, judgments, or settlements arising from
activities occurring on the Baca Ranch or the Preserve after
October 27, 1999,''.
SEC. 3. BOARD OF TRUSTEES.
Section 107(e) of the Valles Caldera Preservation Act
(U.S.C. 698v-5(e)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``Trustees'' and
inserting ``Except as provided in paragraph (3), trustees'';
and
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by striking ``Trustees'' and inserting the following:
``(A) Selection.--Trustees''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Compensation.--On request of the chair, the chair may
be compensated at a rate determined by the Board of Trustees,
but not to exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of
pay for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315
of title 5, United States Code, for each day (including
travel time) in which the chair is engaged in the performance
of duties of the Board of Trustees.
``(C) Maximum rate of pay.--The total amount of
compensation paid to the chair for a fiscal year under
subparagraph (B) shall not exceed 25 percent of the annual
rate of pay for level IV of the Executive Schedule under
section 5315 of title 5, United States Code.''.
SEC. 4. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.
(a) Property Disposal Limitations.--Section 108(c)(3) of
the Valles Caldera Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 698v-6(c)(3))
is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``The Trust may not
dispose'' and inserting the following:
``(A) In general.--The Trust may not dispose'';
(2) in the second sentence, by striking ``The Trust'' and
inserting the following:
``(B) Maximum duration.--The Trust'';
(3) in the last sentence, by striking ``Any such'' and
inserting the following:
``(C) Termination.--The''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Exclusions.--For the purposes of this paragraph, the
disposal of real property does not include the sale or other
disposal of forage, forest products, or marketable renewable
resources.''.
(b) Law Enforcement and Fire Management.--Section 108(g) of
the Valles Caldera Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 698v-6(g)) is
amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``The Secretary''
and inserting the following:
``(1) Law enforcement.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary'';
(2) in the second sentence, by striking ``The Trust'' and
inserting the following:
``(B) Federal agency.--The Trust''; and
(3) by striking ``At the request of the Trust'' and all
that follows through the end of the paragraph and inserting
the following:
``(2) Fire management.--
``(A) Non-reimbursable services.--
``(i) Development of plan.--The Secretary shall, in
consultation with the Trust, develop a plan to carry out fire
preparedness, suppression, and emergency rehabilitation
services on the Preserve.
``(ii) Consistency with management program.--The plan shall
be consistent with the management program developed pursuant
to subsection (d).
``(iii) Cooperative agreement.--To the extent generally
authorized at other units of the National Forest System, the
Secretary shall provide the services to be carried out
pursuant to the plan under a cooperative agreement entered
into between the Secretary and the Trust.
``(B) Reimbursable services.--To the extent generally
authorized at other units of the National Forest System, the
Secretary may provide presuppression and nonemergency
rehabilitation and restoration services for the Trust at any
time on a reimbursable basis.''.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Domenici):
S. 213. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey
certain Federal land to Rio Arriba County, New Mexico; to the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and
Senator Domenici to introduce legislation to allow a transfer of land
to Rio Arriba County, NM from the Bureau of Land Management. The land
is needed for County facilities, a cemetery for a local parish, and a
new public school.
Rio Arriba County is in a difficult position; the needs of the
rapidly increasing area population continue to increase but there is
precious little land available to the County where they can locate
necessary facilities. Fortunately, the County has worked with the BLM
to find a parcel of land that each agrees will best serve the interests
of the public if it is transferred to County ownership. Indeed, I am
told that BLM would likely have handled this transfer administratively
if they were not barred from doing so by the particular history of how
this parcel came into federal ownership. I am unaware of any opposition
to the transfer.
This bill will simply change the legal framework for the parcel so
that the transfer can take place. I hope the Senate can act on this
bill as quickly as possible so that Rio Arriba County can move forward
to meet the pressing needs of the people there.
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. 213
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 ``Rio Arriba County Land
Conveyance Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) County.--The term ``County'' means the County of Rio
Arriba, New Mexico.
(2) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled ``Alcalde
Proposed Land Transfer'' and dated September 23, 2004.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
SEC. 3. CONVEYANCE OF LAND TO RIO ARRIBA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (c), not later than
1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall convey to the County, all right, title, and interest of
the United States in and to the land (including any
improvements to the land) described in subsection (b).
(b) Description of Land.--The land referred to in
subsection (a) consists of approximately 150.86 acres of land
located on
[[Page S659]]
the Sebastian Martin Land Grant in the vicinity of Alcalde,
Rio Arriba County, New Mexico, as depicted on the map.
(c) Conditions.--
(1) In general.--The land conveyed under subsection (a)
shall be treated as public land for the purposes of the Act
of June 14, 1926 (commonly known as the ``Recreation and
Public Purposes Act'') (43 U.S.C. 869 et seq.)
(2) Consideration.--The amount of consideration for the
conveyance of land under subsection (a) shall be determined
by the Secretary consistent with section 2(a) of the Act of
June 14, 1926 (commonly known as the ``Recreation and Public
Purposes Act'') (43 U.S.C. 869-1(a)).
(3) Agreement.--Before conveying the land under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall enter into an agreement with the
County that indemnifies the United States from all liability
of the United States arising from the land conveyed.
______
By Mr BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Domenici, and Mr. Kyl):
S. 214. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
cooperate with the States on the border with Mexico and other
appropriate entities in conducting a hydrogeologic characterization,
mapping, and modeling program for priority transboundary aquifers, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Domenici
and Senator Kyl, I am pleased today to introduce the United States-
Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Act. This legislation is
intended to address the significant challenges concerning water
resources that exist along the U.S-Mexico border. Recognizing the
importance of these issues to the States making up that border, New
Mexico, Arizona, Texas, and California, the Senate passed this bill
twice during the 108th Congress. With strong bipartisan, and now
bicameral support, I hope we can act quickly to pass it once again so
that it can be enacted into law at the earliest opportunity.
The genesis of this bill is a field hearing I conducted over three
years ago during my tenure as the Chairman of the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee. The focus of that hearing was water resource
issues developing along the U.S.-Mexico border. In particular, I was
concerned that issues regarding the availability of future water
supplies were growing, and could lead to conflict in the region. The
testimony at that hearing made clear that consensus is lacking on how
communities in the border region will address their future water needs.
Most significant, I was struck by the lack of agreement on the long-
term viability of future groundwater sources, many of which involve
aquifers underlying both the United States and Mexico. Given the rapid
population growth along the border, and the corresponding increase in
demand for potable water, there is a strong need to gain a common and
detailed understanding of our shared groundwater resources. A science-
based understanding of the resource is the first step to avoid
conflicts similar to the one arising in south Texas over Rio Grande
water deliveries under the 1944 U.S.-Mexico treaty.
The United States-Mexico Trans-boundary Assessment Act is intended to
address the lack of a binational consensus regarding water supplies
along the border. It will do this by establishing a scientific program,
involving the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Water Resources Research
Institutes, and appropriate authorities and other entities on both
sides of the border, to comprehensively assess priority transboundary
aquifers. Ultimately, the information and scientific tools developed
under the program will be extremely valuable to State and local water
resource managers in the border region. Of particular note, the
analysis will include a search for new sources of water such as saline
aquifers. Continued development of desalination technologies may lead
to significant use of this untapped resource in the near future.
I understand that establishing this scientific program and accurately
assessing our shared water resources is just a step towards developing
the long-term plans and solutions that will help avoid future
international disputes concerning scare water supplies. This small
step, however, is an important one, and one with broad policy support.
In its 6th Report on the U.S.-Mexico Border Environment, the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board, an independent federal advisory committee
managed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, recommended the
initiation of a ``border-wide groundwater assessment program to
systematically analyze priority trans-boundary aquifers.'' Also, the
Center for Strategic and International Studies, in a January 2003
report of its U.S.-Mexico Binational Council, included as one of its
recommendations that Mexico and the United States ``improve data
collection, information gathering, and transparency as the first step
to developing a long-term strategy for water management.''
Ultimately, an effective long-term strategy will have to be developed
by the communities and other water users who reside along the border.
Working with each other and their State water resource agencies, I
believe successful strategies can be developed so long as the
information upon which those plans are based is the most accurate
possible. In that respect, the USGS, along with its State-based
partners, have a strong and important role to play. The resources and
criteria provided by this legislation will ensure that these
organizations can fulfill that role which, in turn, will enhance the
prospects of our border communities to be able to plan for their future
in a manner ensuring their long-term viability and prosperity.
Thank you for the opportunity to make these remarks. 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. 214
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 ``United States-Mexico
Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Act''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to direct the Secretary of the
Interior to establish a United States-Mexico transboundary
aquifer assessment program to--
(1) systematically assess priority transboundary aquifers;
and
(2) provide the scientific foundation necessary for State
and local officials to address pressing water resource
challenges in the United States-Mexico border region.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Aquifer.--The term ``aquifer'' means a subsurface
water-bearing geologic formation from which significant
quantities of water may be extracted.
(2) Border state.--The term ``Border State'' means each of
the States of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas.
(3) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' means an
Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or
community--
(A) that is recognized as eligible for the special programs
and services provided by the United States to Indians because
of their status as Indians; and
(B) the reservation of which includes a transboundary
aquifer within the exterior boundaries of the reservation.
(4) Priority transboundary aquifer.--The term ``priority
transboundary aquifer'' means a transboundary aquifer that
has been designated for study and analysis under the program.
(5) Program.--The term ``program'' means the United States-
Mexico transboundary aquifer assessment program established
under section 4(a).
(6) Reservation.--The term ``reservation'' means land that
has been set aside or that has been acknowledged as having
been set aside by the United States for the use of an Indian
tribe, the exterior boundaries of which are more particularly
defined in a final tribal treaty, agreement, executive order,
Federal statute, secretarial order, or judicial
determination.
(7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Director of the United
States Geological Survey.
(8) Transboundary aquifer.--The term ``transboundary
aquifer'' means an aquifer that underlies the boundary
between the United States and Mexico.
(9) Tri-regional planning group.--The term ``Tri-Regional
Planning Group'' means the binational planning group
comprised of--
(A) the Junta Municipal de Agua y Saneamiento de Ciudad
Juarez;
(B) the El Paso Water Utilities Public Service Board; and
(C) the Lower Rio Grande Water Users Organization.
(10) Water resources research institutes.--The term ``water
resources research institutes'' means the institutes within
the Border States established under section 104 of the Water
Resources Research Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10303).
SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation and
cooperation with the Border States, the water resources
research institutes, Sandia National Laboratories, and
[[Page S660]]
other appropriate entities in the United States and Mexico,
shall carry out the United States-Mexico transboundary
aquifer assessment program to characterize, map, and model
transboundary groundwater resources along the United States-
Mexico border at a level of detail determined to be
appropriate for the particular aquifer.
(b) Objectives.--The objectives of the program are to--
(1) develop and implement an integrated scientific approach
to assess transboundary groundwater resources, including--
(A)(i) identifying fresh and saline transboundary aquifers;
and
(ii) prioritizing the transboundary aquifers for further
analysis by assessing--
(I) the proximity of the transboundary aquifer to areas of
high population density;
(II) the extent to which the transboundary aquifer is used;
(III) the susceptibility of the transboundary aquifer to
contamination; and
(IV) any other relevant criteria;
(B) evaluating all available data and publications as part
of the development of study plans for each priority
transboundary aquifer;
(C) creating a new, or enhancing an existing, geographic
information system database to characterize the spatial and
temporal aspects of each priority transboundary aquifer; and
(D) using field studies, including support for and
expansion of ongoing monitoring and metering efforts, to
develop--
(i) the additional data necessary to adequately define
aquifer characteristics; and
(ii) scientifically sound groundwater flow models to assist
with State and local water management and administration,
including modeling of relevant groundwater and surface water
interactions;
(2) expand existing agreements, as appropriate, between the
United States Geological Survey, the Border States, the water
resources research institutes, and appropriate authorities in
the United States and Mexico, to--
(A) conduct joint scientific investigations;
(B) archive and share relevant data; and
(C) carry out any other activities consistent with the
program; and
(3) produce scientific products for each priority
transboundary aquifer that--
(A) are capable of being broadly distributed; and
(B) provide the scientific information needed by water
managers and natural resource agencies on both sides of the
United States-Mexico border to effectively accomplish the
missions of the managers and agencies.
(c) Designation of Priority Transboundary Aquifers.--
(1) In general.--For purposes of the program, the Secretary
shall designate as priority transboundary aquifers--
(A) the Hueco Bolson and Mesilla aquifers underlying parts
of Texas, New Mexico, and Mexico; and
(B) the Santa Cruz River Valley aquifers underlying Arizona
and Sonora, Mexico.
(2) Additional aquifers.--The Secretary shall, using the
criteria under subsection (b)(1)(A)(ii), evaluate and
designate additional priority transboundary aquifers.
(d) Cooperation With Mexico.--To ensure a comprehensive
assessment of transboundary aquifers, the Secretary shall, to
the maximum extent practicable, work with appropriate Federal
agencies and other organizations to develop partnerships
with, and receive input from, relevant organizations in
Mexico to carry out the program.
(e) Grants and Cooperative Agreements.--The Secretary may
provide grants or enter into cooperative agreements and other
agreements with the water resources research institutes and
other Border State entities to carry out the program.
SEC. 5. IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAM.
(a) Coordination With States, Tribes, and Other Entities.--
The Secretary shall coordinate the activities carried out
under the program with--
(1) the appropriate water resource agencies in the Border
States;
(2) any affected Indian tribes; and
(3) any other appropriate entities that are conducting
monitoring and metering activity with respect to a priority
transboundary aquifer.
(b) New Activity.--After the date of enactment of this Act,
the Secretary shall not initiate any new field studies or
analyses under the program before consulting with, and
coordinating the activity with, any Border State water
resource agencies that have jurisdiction over the aquifer.
(c) Study Plans; Cost Estimates.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall work closely with
appropriate Border State water resource agencies, water
resources research institutes, and other relevant entities to
develop a study plan, timeline, and cost estimate for each
priority transboundary aquifer to be studied under the
program.
(2) Requirements.--A study plan developed under paragraph
(1) shall, to the maximum extent practicable--
(A) integrate existing data collection and analyses
conducted with respect to the priority transboundary aquifer;
(B) if applicable, improve and strengthen existing
groundwater flow models developed for the priority
transboundary aquifer; and
(C) be consistent with appropriate State guidelines and
goals.
SEC. 6. EFFECT.
Nothing in this Act affects--
(1) the jurisdiction or responsibility of a Border State
with respect to managing surface or groundwater resources in
the Border State; or
(2) the water rights of any person or entity using water
from a transboundary aquifer.
SEC. 7. REPORTS.
Not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this
Act, and on completion of the program in fiscal year 2014,
the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate water resource
agency in the Border States, an interim and final report,
respectively, that describes--
(1) any activities carried out under the program;
(2) any conclusions of the Secretary relating to the status
of transboundary aquifers; and
(3) the level of participation in the program of entities
in Mexico.
SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this Act $50,000,000 for the period of fiscal years
2006 through 2015.
(b) Distribution of Funds.--Of the amounts made available
under subsection (a), 50 percent shall be made available to
the water resources research institutes to provide funding to
appropriate entities in the Border States (including Sandia
National Laboratories, State agencies, universities, the Tri-
Regional Planning Group, and other relevant organizations)
and Mexico to conduct activities under the program, including
the binational collection and exchange of scientific data.
______
By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 215. A bill to amend the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement
Act to revise and extend that Act; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to
reauthorize the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act. Senator
Akaka joins me in sponsoring this measure.
The Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act was enacted into law
in 1988, and has been reauthorized every 4 years since that time.
The Act provides authority for range of programs and services
designed to improve the health care status of the Native people of
Hawaii.
With the enactment of the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act
and the establishment of Native Hawaiian health care systems on most of
the islands that make up the State of Hawaii, we have witnessed
significant improvements in the health status of Native Hawaiians, but
as the findings of unmet needs and health disparities set forth in this
bill make clear, we still have a long way to go.
For instance, Native Hawaiians have the highest cancer mortality
rates in the State of Hawaii--rates that are 21 percent higher than the
rate for the total State male population and 64 percent higher than the
rate for the total State female population. Nationally, Native
Hawaiians have the third highest mortality rate as a result of breast
cancer.
With respect to diabetes, in 2000, Native Hawaiians had the highest
mortality rate associated with diabetes in the State--a rate which is
138 percent higher than the statewide rate for all racial groups.
When it comes to heart disease, the mortality rate of Native
Hawaiians associated with heart disease is 68 percent higher than the
rate for the entire State, and the mortality rate for hypertension is
84 percent higher than that for the entire State.
These statistics on the health status of Native Hawaiians are but a
small part of the long list of data that makes clear that our objective
of assuring that the Native people of Hawaii attain some parity of good
health comparable to that of the larger U.S. population has not yet
been achieved.
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. 215
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 ``Native Hawaiian Health Care
Improvement Reauthorization Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE NATIVE HAWAIIAN HEALTH CARE
IMPROVEMENT ACT.
The Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act (42 U.S.C.
11701 et seq.) is amended to read as follows:
``SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
``(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the `Native
Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act'.
``(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
[[Page S661]]
``Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
``Sec. 2. Findings.
``Sec. 3. Definitions.
``Sec. 4. Declaration of national Native Hawaiian health policy.
``Sec. 5. Comprehensive health care master plan for Native Hawaiians.
``Sec. 6. Functions of Papa Ola Lokahi and Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
``Sec. 7. Native Hawaiian health care.
``Sec. 8. Administrative grant for Papa Ola Lokahi.
``Sec. 9. Administration of grants and contracts.
``Sec. 10. Assignment of personnel.
``Sec. 11. Native Hawaiian health scholarships and fellowships.
``Sec. 12. Report.
``Sec. 13. Use of Federal Government facilities and sources of supply.
``Sec. 14. Demonstration projects of national significance.
``Sec. 15. Rule of construction.
``Sec. 16. Compliance with Budget Act.
``Sec. 17. Severability.
``SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
``(a) General Findings.--Congress finds that--
``(1) Native Hawaiians begin their story with the Kumulipo,
which details the creation and interrelationship of all
things, including the evolvement of Native Hawaiians as
healthy and well people;
``(2) Native Hawaiians--
``(A) are a distinct and unique indigenous people with a
historical continuity to the original inhabitants of the
Hawaiian archipelago within Ke Moananui, the Pacific Ocean;
and
``(B) have a distinct society that was first organized
almost 2,000 years ago;
``(3) the health and well-being of Native Hawaiians are
intrinsically tied to the deep feelings and attachment of
Native Hawaiians to their lands and seas;
``(4) the long-range economic and social changes in Hawaii
over the 19th and early 20th centuries have been devastating
to the health and well-being of Native Hawaiians;
``(5) Native Hawaiians have never directly relinquished to
the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty
as a people or over their national territory, either through
their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum;
``(6) the Native Hawaiian people are determined to
preserve, develop, and transmit to future generations, in
accordance with their own spiritual and traditional beliefs,
their customs, practices, language, social institutions,
ancestral territory, and cultural identity;
``(7) in referring to themselves, Native Hawaiians use the
term `Kanaka Maoli', a term frequently used in the 19th
century to describe the native people of Hawaii;
``(8) the constitution and statutes of the State of
Hawaii--
``(A) acknowledge the distinct land rights of Native
Hawaiian people as beneficiaries of the public lands trust;
and
``(B) reaffirm and protect the unique right of the Native
Hawaiian people to practice and perpetuate their cultural and
religious customs, beliefs, practices, and language;
``(9) at the time of the arrival of the first nonindigenous
people in Hawaii in 1778, the Native Hawaiian people lived in
a highly organized, self-sufficient, subsistence social
system based on communal land tenure with a sophisticated
language, culture, and religion;
``(10) a unified monarchical government of the Hawaiian
Islands was established in 1810 under Kamehameha I, the first
King of Hawaii;
``(11) throughout the 19th century until 1893, the United
States--
``(A) recognized the independence of the Hawaiian Nation;
``(B) extended full and complete diplomatic recognition to
the Hawaiian Government; and
``(C) entered into treaties and conventions with the
Hawaiian monarchs to govern commerce and navigation in 1826,
1842, 1849, 1875, and 1887;
``(12) in 1893, John L. Stevens, the United States Minister
assigned to the sovereign and independent Kingdom of Hawaii,
conspired with a small group of non-Hawaiian residents of the
Kingdom, including citizens of the United States, to
overthrow the indigenous and lawful government of Hawaii;
``(13) in pursuance of that conspiracy--
``(A) the United States Minister and the naval
representative of the United States caused armed forces of
the United States Navy to invade the sovereign Hawaiian
Nation in support of the overthrow of the indigenous and
lawful Government of Hawaii; and
``(B) after that overthrow, the United States Minister
extended diplomatic recognition of a provisional government
formed by the conspirators without the consent of the native
people of Hawaii or the lawful Government of Hawaii, in
violation of--
``(i) treaties between the Government of Hawaii and the
United States; and
``(ii) international law;
``(14) in a message to Congress on December 18, 1893,
President Grover Cleveland--
``(A) reported fully and accurately on those illegal
actions;
``(B) acknowledged that by those acts, described by the
President as acts of war, the government of a peaceful and
friendly people was overthrown; and
``(C) concluded that a `substantial wrong has thus been
done which a due regard for our national character as well as
the rights of the injured people required that we should
endeavor to repair';
``(15) Queen Lili`uokalani, the lawful monarch of Hawaii,
and the Hawaiian Patriotic League, representing the
aboriginal citizens of Hawaii, promptly petitioned the United
States for redress of those wrongs and restoration of the
indigenous government of the Hawaiian nation, but no action
was taken on that petition;
``(16) in 1993, Congress enacted Public Law 103-150 (107
Stat. 1510), in which Congress--
``(A) acknowledged the significance of those events; and
``(B) apologized to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the
people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom
of Hawaii with the participation of agents and citizens of
the United States, and the resulting deprivation of the
rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination;
``(17) in 1898, the United States--
``(A) annexed Hawaii through Resolution No. 55 (commonly
known as the `Newlands Resolution') (30 Stat. 750), without
the consent of, or compensation to, the indigenous people of
Hawaii or the sovereign government of those people; and
``(B) denied those people the mechanism for expression of
their inherent sovereignty through self-government and self-
determination of their lands and ocean resources;
``(18) through the Newlands Resolution and the Act of April
30, 1900 (commonly known as the `1900 Organic Act') (31 Stat.
141, chapter 339), Congress--
``(A) received 1,750,000 acres of land formerly owned by
the Crown and Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom; and
``(B) exempted the land from then-existing public land laws
of the United States by mandating that the revenue and
proceeds from that land be `used solely for the benefit of
the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands for education and
other public purposes', thereby establishing a special trust
relationship between the United States and the inhabitants of
Hawaii;
``(19) in 1921, Congress enacted the Hawaiian Homes
Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108, chapter 42), which--
``(A) designated 200,000 acres of the ceded public land for
exclusive homesteading by Native Hawaiians; and
``(B) affirmed the trust relationship between the United
States and Native Hawaiians, as expressed by Secretary of the
Interior Franklin K. Lane, who was cited in the Committee
Report of the Committee on Territories of the House of
Representatives as stating, `One thing that impressed me . .
. was the fact that the natives of the islands . . . for whom
in a sense we are trustees, are falling off rapidly in
numbers and many of them are in poverty.';
``(20) in 1938, Congress again acknowledged the unique
status of the Native Hawaiian people by including in the Act
of June 20, 1938 (52 Stat. 781), a provision--
``(A) to lease land within the extension to Native
Hawaiians; and
``(B) to permit fishing in the area `only by native
Hawaiian residents of said area or of adjacent villages and
by visitors under their guidance';
``(21) under the Act of March 18, 1959 (48 U.S.C. prec. 491
note; 73 Stat. 4), the United States--
``(A) transferred responsibility for the administration of
the Hawaiian home lands to the State; but
``(B) reaffirmed the trust relationship that existed
between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people by
retaining the exclusive power to enforce the trust, including
the power to approve land exchanges and
legislative amendments affecting the rights of
beneficiaries under that Act;
``(22) under the Act referred to in paragraph (21), the
United States--
``(A) transferred responsibility for administration over
portions of the ceded public lands trust not retained by the
United States to the State; but
``(B) reaffirmed the trust relationship that existed
between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people by
retaining the legal responsibility of the State for the
betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians under
section 5(f) of that Act (73 Stat. 6);
``(23) in 1978, the people of Hawaii--
``(A) amended the constitution of Hawaii to establish the
Office of Hawaiian Affairs; and
``(B) assigned to that Office the authority--
``(i) to accept and hold in trust for the Native Hawaiian
people real and personal property transferred from any
source;
``(ii) to receive payments from the State owed to the
Native Hawaiian people in satisfaction of the pro rata share
of the proceeds of the public land trust established by
section 5(f) of the Act of March 18, 1959 (48 U.S.C. prec.
491 note; 73 Stat. 6);
``(iii) to act as the lead State agency for matters
affecting the Native Hawaiian people; and
``(iv) to formulate policy on affairs relating to the
Native Hawaiian people;
``(24) the authority of Congress under the Constitution to
legislate in matters affecting the aboriginal or indigenous
people of the United States includes the authority to
legislate in matters affecting the native people of Alaska
and Hawaii;
``(25) the United States has recognized the authority of
the Native Hawaiian people to continue to work toward an
appropriate form of sovereignty, as defined by the Native
Hawaiian people in provisions set forth in legislation
returning the Hawaiian Island of
[[Page S662]]
Kaho`olawe to custodial management by the State in 1994;
``(26) in furtherance of the trust responsibility for the
betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians, the United
States has established a program for the provision of
comprehensive health promotion and disease prevention
services to maintain and improve the health status of the
Hawaiian people;
``(27) that program is conducted by the Native Hawaiian
Health Care Systems and Papa Ola Lokahi;
``(28) health initiatives implemented by those and other
health institutions and agencies using Federal assistance
have been responsible for reducing the century-old morbidity
and mortality rates of Native Hawaiian people by--
``(A) providing comprehensive disease prevention;
``(B) providing health promotion activities; and
``(C) increasing the number of Native Hawaiians in the
health and allied health professions;
``(29) those accomplishments have been achieved through
implementation of--
``(A) the Native Hawaiian Health Care Act of 1988 (Public
Law 100-579); and
``(B) the reauthorization of that Act under section 9168 of
the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public
Law 102-396; 106 Stat. 1948);
``(30) the historical and unique legal relationship between
the United States and Native Hawaiians has been consistently
recognized and affirmed by Congress through the enactment of
more than 160 Federal laws that extend to the Native Hawaiian
people the same rights and privileges accorded to American
Indian, Alaska Native, Eskimo, and Aleut communities,
including--
``(A) the Native American Programs Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C.
2991 et seq.);
``(B) the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C.
1996);
``(C) the National Museum of the American Indian Act (20
U.S.C. 80q et seq.); and
``(D) the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.);
``(31) the United States has recognized and reaffirmed the
trust relationship to the Native Hawaiian people through
legislation that authorizes the provision of services to
Native Hawaiians, specifically--
``(A) the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3001 et
seq.);
``(B) the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of
Rights Act Amendments of 1987 (42 U.S.C. 6000 et seq.);
``(C) the Veterans' Benefits and Services Act of 1988
(Public Law 100-322);
``(D) the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 701 et
seq.);
``(E) the Native Hawaiian Health Care Act of 1988 (42
U.S.C. 11701 et seq.);
``(F) the Health Professions Reauthorization Act of 1988
(Public Law 100-607; 102 Stat. 3122);
``(G) the Nursing Shortage Reduction and Education
Extension Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-607; 102 Stat. 3153);
``(H) the Handicapped Programs Technical Amendments Act of
1988 (Public Law 100-630);
``(I) the Indian Health Care Amendments of 1988 (Public Law
100-713); and
``(J) the Disadvantaged Minority Health Improvement Act of
1990 (Public Law 101-527);
``(32) the United States has affirmed that historical and
unique legal relationship to the Hawaiian people by
authorizing the provision of services to Native Hawaiians to
address problems of alcohol and drug abuse under the Anti-
Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (21 U.S.C. 801 note; Public Law 99-
570);
``(33) in addition, the United States--
``(A) has recognized that Native Hawaiians, as aboriginal,
indigenous, native people of Hawaii, are a unique population
group in Hawaii and in the continental United States; and
``(B) has so declared in Office of Management and Budget
Circular 15 in 1997 and Presidential Executive Order No.
13125, dated June 7, 1999; and
``(34) despite the United States having expressed in Public
Law 103-150 (107 Stat. 1510) its commitment to a policy of
reconciliation with the Native Hawaiian people for past
grievances--
``(A) the unmet health needs of the Native Hawaiian people
remain severe; and
``(B) the health status of the Native Hawaiian people
continues to be far below that of the general population of
the United States.
``(b) Finding of Unmet Needs and Health Disparities.--
Congress finds that the unmet needs and serious health
disparities that adversely affect the Native Hawaiian people
include the following:
``(1) Chronic disease and illness.--
``(A) Cancer.--
``(i) In general.--With respect to all cancer--
``(I) Native Hawaiians have the highest cancer mortality
rates in the State (216.8 out of every 100,000 male residents
and 191.6 out of every 100,000 female residents), rates that
are 21 percent higher than the rate for the total State male
population (179.0 out of every 100,000 residents) and 64
percent higher than the rate for the total State female
population (117.0 per 100,000);
``(II) Native Hawaiian males have the highest cancer
mortality rates in the State for cancers of the lung, colon,
rectum, and colorectum, and for all cancers combined;
``(III) Native Hawaiian females have the highest cancer
mortality rates in the State for cancers of the lung, liver,
pancreas, breast, corpus uteri, stomach, colon, and rectum,
and for all cancers combined;
``(IV) Native Hawaiian males have 8.7 years of productive
life lost as a result of cancer in the State, the highest
years of productive life lost in that State, as compared with
6.4 years for all males; and
``(V) Native Hawaiian females have 8.2 years of productive
life lost as a result of cancer in the State as compared with
6.4 years for all females in the State.
``(ii) Breast cancer.--With respect to breast cancer--
``(I) Native Hawaiians have the highest mortality rate in
the State from breast cancer (30.79 out of every 100,000
residents), a rate that is 33 percent higher than that for
Caucasian Americans (23.07 out of every 100,000 residents)
and 106 percent higher than that for Chinese Americans (14.96
out of every 100,000 residents); and
``(II) nationally, Native Hawaiians have the third highest
mortality rate as a result of breast cancer (25.0 out of
every 100,000 residents), behind African Americans (31.4 out
of every 100,000 residents) and Caucasian Americans (27.0 out
of every 100,000 residents).
``(iii) Cancer of the cervix.--Native Hawaiians have the
highest mortality rate as a result of cancer of the cervix in
the State (3.65 out of every 100,000 residents), followed by
Filipino Americans (2.69 out of every 100,000 residents) and
Caucasian Americans (2.61 out of every 100,000 residents).
``(iv) Lung cancer.--Native Hawaiian males and females have
the highest mortality rates as a result of lung cancer in the
State, at 74.79 per 100,000 for males and 47.84 per 100,000
females, which rates are higher than the rates for the total
State population by 48 percent for males and 93 percent for
females.
``(v) Prostate cancer.--Native Hawaiian males have the
third highest mortality rate as a result of prostate cancer
in the State (21.48 out of every 100,000 residents), with
Caucasian Americans having the highest mortality rate as a
result of prostate cancer (23.96 out of every 100,000
residents).
``(B) Diabetes.--With respect to diabetes, in 2000--
``(i) Native Hawaiians had the highest mortality rate as a
result of diabetes mellitis (38.8 out of every 100,000
residents) in the State, which rate is 138 percent higher
than the statewide rate for all racial groups (16.3 out of
every 100,000 residents); and
``(ii) full-blood Hawaiians had a mortality as a result of
diabetes mellitis of 93.3 out of every 100,000 residents,
which is 518 percent higher than the rate for the statewide
population of all other racial groups.
``(C) Asthma.--With respect to asthma--
``(i) in 1990, Native Hawaiians comprised 44 percent of all
asthma cases in the State for those 18 years of age and
younger, and 35 percent of all asthma cases reported; and
``(ii) in 1999, the Native Hawaiian prevalence rate for
asthma was 129.6 out of every 1,000 residents, which was 69
percent higher than the rate for all others combined in the
State (76.7 out of every 1,000 residents).
``(D) Circulatory diseases.--
``(i) Heart disease.--With respect to heart disease--
``(I) the mortality rate for Native Hawaiians as a result
of heart disease (372.3 out of every 100,000 residents) is 68
percent higher than the rate for the entire State (221.9 out
of every 100,000 residents); and
``(II) Native Hawaiian males have the greatest years of
productive life lost in the State, because Native Hawaiian
males lose an average of 15.5 years and Native Hawaiian
females lose an average of 8.2 years as a result of heart
disease, as compared with 7.5 years for all males, and 6.4
years for all females, in the State.
``(ii) Hypertension.--With respect to hypertension--
``(I) the mortality rate for Native Hawaiians as a result
of hypertension (3.5 out of every 100,000 residents) is 84
percent higher than that for the entire State (1.9 out of
every 100,000 residents);
``(II) Native Hawaiians have substantially higher
prevalence rates of hypertension than--
``(aa) those observed statewide; and
``(bb) those of any other ethnic group in Hawaii; and
``(III) the prevalence rate of hypertension for Native
Hawaiians is 37.9 percent, 11 percent higher than that for
all others in the State (34.1 percent).
``(iii) Stroke.--The mortality rate for Native Hawaiians as
a result of stroke (72.0 out of every 100,000 residents) is
20 percent higher than that for the entire State (60 out of
every 100,000 residents).
``(2) Infectious disease and illness.--With respect to
infectious disease and illness--
``(A) in 1998, Native Hawaiians comprised 20 percent of all
deaths resulting from infectious diseases in the State for
all ages; and
``(B) the incidence of acquired immune deficiency syndrome
for Native Hawaiians is at least twice as high per 100,000
residents (10.5 percent) than that for any other non-
Caucasian group in the State.
``(3) Injuries.--With respect to injuries--
``(A) the mortality rate for Native Hawaiians as a result
of injuries (32.0 out of every 100,000 residents) is 16
percent higher than that for the entire State (27.5 out of
every 100,000 residents);
[[Page S663]]
``(B) 32 percent of all deaths of individuals between the
ages of 18 and 24 years of age resulting from injuries were
Native Hawaiian; and
``(C) the 2 primary causes of Native Hawaiian deaths in
that age group were motor vehicle accidents (30 percent) and
intentional self-harm (39 percent).
``(4) Dental health.--With respect to dental health--
``(A) Native Hawaiian children exhibit among the highest
rates of dental caries in the United States, and the highest
in the State as compared with the 5 other major ethnic groups
in the State;
``(B) the average number of decayed or filled primary teeth
for Native Hawaiian children aged 5 through 9 years was 4.3,
as compared with 3.7 for all children in the State and 1.9
for all children in the United States; and
``(C) the proportion of Native Hawaiian children aged 5
through 12 years with unmet dental treatment needs (defined
as having active dental caries requiring treatment) is 40
percent, as compared with 33 percent for all other racial
groups in the State.
``(5) Life expectancy.--With respect to life expectancy--
``(A) Native Hawaiians have the lowest life expectancy of
all population groups in the State;
``(B) between 1910 and 1980, the life expectancy of Native
Hawaiians from birth has ranged from 5 to 10 years less than
that of the overall State population average; and
``(C) the most recent tables for 1990 show Native Hawaiian
life expectancy at birth (74.27 years) to be approximately 5
years less than that of the total State population (78.85
years).
``(6) Maternal and child health.--
``(A) In general.--With respect to maternal and child
health, for 2000--
``(i) 39 percent of all deaths of children under the age of
18 years in the State were Native Hawaiian; and
``(ii) perinatal conditions accounted for 38 percent of all
Native Hawaiian deaths in that age group.
``(B) Prenatal care.--With respect to prenatal care--
``(i) as of 1998, Native Hawaiian women have the highest
prevalence (24 percent) of having had no prenatal care during
the first trimester of pregnancy, as compared with the 5
largest ethnic groups in the State;
``(ii) of the mothers in the State who received no prenatal
care throughout their pregnancies in 1996, 44 percent were
Native Hawaiian;
``(iii) more than 65 percent of the referrals to Healthy
Start in fiscal years 1996 and 1997 were Native Hawaiian
newborns; and
``(iv) in every region of the State, many Native Hawaiian
newborns begin life in a potentially hazardous circumstance,
far higher than any other racial group.
``(C) Births.--With respect to births--
``(i) in 1996, 45 percent of the live births to Native
Hawaiian mothers were infants born to single mothers, a
circumstance which statistics indicate puts infants at higher
risk of low birth weight and infant mortality;
``(ii) in 1996, of the births to Native Hawaiian single
mothers, 8 percent were low birth weight (defined as a weight
of less than 2,500 grams); and
``(iii) of all low birth weight infants born to single
mothers in the State, 44 percent were Native Hawaiian.
``(D) Teen pregnancies.--With respect to births--
``(i) in 1993 and 1994, Native Hawaiians had the highest
percentage of teen (individuals who were less than 18 years
of age) births (8.1 percent), as compared with the rate for
all other racial groups in the State (3.6 percent);
``(ii) in 1998, nearly 49 percent of all mothers in the
State under 19 years of age were Native Hawaiian;
``(iii) in 1998, Native Hawaiians comprised 31 percent
(1,425) of all live births to mothers with medical risk
factors in the State (4,559); and
``(iv) lower rates of abortion (approximately 33 percent
lower than for the statewide population) among Hawaiian women
may account, in part, for that higher percentage of live
births.
``(E) Fetal mortality.--With respect to fetal mortality--
``(i) in 2000, Native Hawaiians had the highest number of
fetal deaths in the State; and
``(ii)(I) 21 percent of all fetal deaths in the State were
associated with expectant Native Hawaiian mothers; and
``(II) 37 percent of those Native Hawaiian mothers were
under the age of 25 years.
``(7) Mental health.--
``(A) Alcohol and drug abuse.--With respect to alcohol and
drug abuse--
``(i) Native Hawaiians represent 38 percent of the total
admissions to substance abuse treatment programs funded by
the Department of Health, Alcohol, Drugs and Other Drugs of
the State;
``(ii) in 2000, the prevalence of cigarette smoking by
Native Hawaiians was 31.0 percent, a rate that is 57 percent
higher than that for the total population in the State, which
is 19.7 percent;
``(iii) Native Hawaiians have the highest prevalence rate
of acute alcohol drinking (19.6 percent), a rate that is 40
percent higher than that for the total population in the
State;
``(iv) the chronic alcohol drinking rate among Native
Hawaiians is 54 percent higher than that for all other racial
groups in the State;
``(v) in 1991, 40 percent of Native Hawaiian adults
surveyed reported having used marijuana, as compared with 30
percent for all other racial groups in the State; and
``(vi) 9 percent of the Native Hawaiian adults surveyed
reported that they use or have used marijuana within the year
preceding the survey, as compared with 6 percent for all
other racial groups in the State.
``(B) Crime.--With respect to crime--
``(i) in 1998, of the 7,789 arrests that were made for
property crimes in the State, arrests of Native Hawaiians
comprised 23 percent;
``(ii) Native Hawaiians comprised 40 percent of juvenile
arrests in 1998, the largest percentage of all juvenile
arrests in that year;
``(iii) in the period of 1996 through 1998, the
overrepresentation of Native Hawaiian juvenile arrests for
index crimes and Part II offenses increased by 6 percent and
2 percent, respectively;
``(iv) in 1998, Native Hawaiians represented 22 percent of
the 2,423 adults arrested for drug-related offenses in the
State;
``(v) Native Hawaiians are overrepresented in the prison
population in the State;
``(vi) of the 2,260 incarcerated Native Hawaiians, 70
percent are between 20 and 40 years of age;
``(vii) in 1995 and 1996, Native Hawaiians comprised 36.5
percent of the sentenced felon prison population in Hawaii,
as compared with 20.5 percent for Caucasian Americans, 3.7
percent for Japanese Americans, and 6 percent for Chinese
Americans;
``(viii) in 2002, Native Hawaiians comprised 40 percent of
the total sentenced felon population in the State, as
compared with 25 percent for Caucasian Americans, 12 percent
for Filipino Americans, 6 percent for Japanese Americans, and
5 percent for Samoans; and
``(ix) based on anecdotal information from inmates at the
Halawa Correction Facilities, Native Hawaiians are estimated
to comprise between 60 and 70 percent of all inmates in the
State.
``(8) Obesity.--Native Hawaiians have the highest
prevalence rate of overweightness and obesity (69.4 percent),
a rate that is 38 percent higher than that for the total
State population (50.2 percent).
``(9) Health professions education and training.--With
respect to health professions education and training--
``(A)(i) Native Hawaiians who are at least 25 years of age
have a comparable rate of high school completion as compared
with all people in the State who are at least 25 years of
age; but
``(ii) the rate of baccalaureate degree achievement among
Native Hawaiians is 6.9 percent, which is less than the
average in the State (15.76 percent);
``(B) Native Hawaiian physicians make up 4 percent of the
total physician workforce in the State; and
``(C)(i) in fiscal year 1999, Native Hawaiians comprised--
``(I) 9 percent of those individuals who earned Bachelor's
degrees;
``(II) 15 percent of those individuals who earned 2-year
diplomas; and
``(III) 6 percent of those individuals who earned Master's
degrees; and
``(ii) in 1997, Native Hawaiians comprised less than 1
percent of individuals who earned doctoral degrees at the
University of Hawaii.
``SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
``In this Act:
``(1) Department.--The term `Department' means the
Department of Health and Human Services.
``(2) Disease prevention.--The term `disease prevention'
includes--
``(A) immunizations;
``(B) control of high blood pressure;
``(C) control of sexually transmittable diseases;
``(D) prevention and control of chronic diseases;
``(E) control of toxic agents;
``(F) occupational safety and health;
``(G) injury prevention;
``(H) fluoridation of water;
``(I) control of infectious agents; and
``(J) provision of mental health care.
``(3) Health promotion.--The term `health promotion'
includes--
``(A) pregnancy and infant care, including prevention of
fetal alcohol syndrome;
``(B) cessation of tobacco smoking;
``(C) reduction in the misuse of alcohol and harmful
illicit drugs;
``(D) improvement of nutrition;
``(E) improvement in physical fitness;
``(F) family planning;
``(G) control of stress;
``(H) reduction of major behavioral risk factors and
promotion of healthy lifestyle practices; and
``(I) integration of cultural approaches to health and
well-being (including traditional practices relating to the
atmosphere (lewa lani), land (`aina), water (wai), and ocean
(kai)).
``(4) Health service.--The term `health service' means--
``(A) service provided by a physician, physician's
assistant, nurse practitioner, nurse, dentist, or other
health professional;
``(B) a diagnostic laboratory or radiologic service;
``(C) a preventive health service (including a perinatal
service, well child service, family planning service,
nutrition service, home health service, sports medicine and
athletic training service, and, generally, any service
associated with enhanced health and wellness);
[[Page S664]]
``(D) emergency medical service, including a service
provided by a first responder, emergency medical technician,
or mobile intensive care technician;
``(E) a transportation service required for adequate
patient care;
``(F) a preventive dental service;
``(G) a pharmaceutical and medicament service;
``(H) a mental health service, including a service provided
by a psychologist or social worker;
``(I) a genetic counseling service;
``(J) a health administration service, including a service
provided by a health program administrator;
``(K) a health research service, including a service
provided by an individual with an advanced degree in
medicine, nursing, psychology, social work, or any other
related health program;
``(L) an environmental health service, including a service
provided by an epidemiologist, public health official,
medical geographer, or medical anthropologist, or an
individual specializing in biological, chemical, or
environmental health determinants;
``(M) a primary care service that may lead to specialty or
tertiary care; and
``(N) a complementary healing practice, including a
practice performed by a traditional Native Hawaiian healer.
``(5) Native hawaiian.--The term `Native Hawaiian' means
any individual who is Kanaka Maoli (a descendant of the
aboriginal people who, prior to 1778, occupied and exercised
sovereignty in the area that now constitutes the State), as
evidenced by--
``(A) genealogical records;
``(B) kama`aina witness verification from Native Hawaiian
Kupuna (elders); or
``(C) birth records of the State or any other State or
territory of the United States.
``(6) Native hawaiian health care system.--The term `Native
Hawaiian health care system' means any of up to 8 entities in
the State that--
``(A) is organized under the laws of the State;
``(B) provides or arranges for the provision of health
services for Native Hawaiians in the State;
``(C) is a public or nonprofit private entity;
``(D) has Native Hawaiians significantly participating in
the planning, management, provision, monitoring, and
evaluation of health services;
``(E) addresses the health care needs of an island's Native
Hawaiian population; and
``(F) is recognized by Papa Ola Lokahi--
``(i) for the purpose of planning, conducting, or
administering programs, or portions of programs, authorized
by this Act for the benefit of Native Hawaiians; and
``(ii) as having the qualifications and the capacity to
provide the services and meet the requirements under--
``(I) the contract that each Native Hawaiian health care
system enters into with the Secretary under this Act; or
``(II) the grant each Native Hawaiian health care system
receives from the Secretary under this Act.
``(7) Native hawaiian health center.--The term `Native
Hawaiian Health Center' means any organization that is a
primary health care provider that--
``(A) has a governing board composed of individuals, at
least 50 percent of whom are Native Hawaiians;
``(B) has demonstrated cultural competency in a
predominantly Native Hawaiian community;
``(C) serves a patient population that--
``(i) is made up of individuals at least 50 percent of whom
are Native Hawaiian; or
``(ii) has not less than 2,500 Native Hawaiians as annual
users of services; and
``(D) is recognized by Papa Ola Lokahi as having met each
of the criteria described in subparagraphs (A) through (C).
``(8) Native hawaiian health task force.--The term `Native
Hawaiian Health Task Force' means a task force established by
the State Council of Hawaiian Homestead Associations to
implement health and wellness strategies in Native Hawaiian
communities.
``(9) Native hawaiian organization.--The term `Native
Hawaiian organization' means any organization that--
``(A) serves the interests of Native Hawaiians; and
``(B)(i) is recognized by Papa Ola Lokahi for planning,
conducting, or administering programs authorized under this
Act for the benefit of Native Hawaiians; and
``(ii) is a public or nonprofit private entity.
``(10) Office of hawaiian affairs.--The term `Office of
Hawaiian Affairs' means the governmental entity that--
``(A) is established under article XII, sections 5 and 6,
of the Hawaii State Constitution; and
``(B) charged with the responsibility to formulate policy
relating to the affairs of Native Hawaiians.
``(11) Papa ola lokahi.--
``(A) In general.--The term `Papa Ola Lokahi' means an
organization that--
``(i) is composed of public agencies and private
organizations focusing on improving the health status of
Native Hawaiians; and
``(ii) governed by a board the members of which may include
representation from--
``(I) E Ola Mau;
``(II) the Office of Hawaiian Affairs;
``(III) Alu Like, Inc.;
``(IV) the University of Hawaii;
``(V) the Hawaii State Department of Health;
``(VI) the Native Hawaiian Health Task Force;
``(VII) the Hawaii State Primary Care Association;
``(VIII) Ahahui O Na Kauka, the Native Hawaiian Physicians
Association;
``(IX) Ho`ola Lahui Hawaii, or a health care system serving
the islands of Kaua`i or Ni`ihau (which may be composed of as
many health care centers as are necessary to meet the health
care needs of the Native Hawaiians of those islands);
``(X) Ke Ola Mamo, or a health care system serving the
island of O`ahu (which may be composed of as many health care
centers as are necessary to meet the health care needs of the
Native Hawaiians of that island);
``(XI) Na Pu`uwai or a health care system serving the
islands of Moloka`i or Lana`i (which may be composed of as
many health care centers as are necessary to meet the health
care needs of the Native Hawaiians of those islands);
``(XII) Hui No Ke Ola Pono, or a health care system serving
the island of Maui (which may be composed of as many health
care centers as are necessary to meet the health care needs
of the Native Hawaiians of that island);
``(XIII) Hui Malama Ola Na `Oiwi, or a health care system
serving the island of Hawaii (which may be composed of as
many health care centers as are necessary to meet the
health care needs of the Native Hawaiians of that island);
``(XIV) such other Native Hawaiian health care systems as
are certified and recognized by Papa Ola Lokahi in accordance
with this Act; and
``(XV) such other member organizations as the Board of Papa
Ola Lokahi shall admit from time to time, based on
satisfactory demonstration of a record of contribution to the
health and well-being of Native Hawaiians.
``(B) Exclusion.--The term `Papa Ola Lokahi' does not
include any organization described in subparagraph (A) for
which the Secretary has made a determination that the
organization has not developed a mission statement that
includes--
``(i) clearly-defined goals and objectives for the
contributions the organization will make to--
``(I) Native Hawaiian health care systems; and
``(II) the national policy described in section 4; and
``(ii) an action plan for carrying out those goals and
objectives.
``(12) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.
``(13) State.--The term `State' means the State of Hawaii.
``(14) Traditional native hawaiian healer.--The term
`traditional Native Hawaiian healer' means a practitioner--
``(A) who--
``(i) is of Native Hawaiian ancestry; and
``(ii) has the knowledge, skills, and experience in direct
personal health care of individuals; and
``(B) the knowledge, skills, and experience of whom are
based on demonstrated learning of Native Hawaiian healing
practices acquired by--
``(i) direct practical association with Native Hawaiian
elders; and
``(ii) oral traditions transmitted from generation to
generation.
``SEC. 4. DECLARATION OF NATIONAL NATIVE HAWAIIAN HEALTH
POLICY.
``(a) Declaration.--Congress declares that it is the policy
of the United States, in fulfillment of special
responsibilities and legal obligations of the United States
to the indigenous people of Hawaii resulting from the unique
and historical relationship between the United States and the
indigenous people of Hawaii--
``(1) to raise the health status of Native Hawaiians to the
highest practicable health level; and
``(2) to provide Native Hawaiian health care programs with
all resources necessary to effectuate that policy.
``(b) Intent of Congress.--It is the intent of Congress
that--
``(1) health care programs having a demonstrated effect of
substantially reducing or eliminating the overrepresentation
of Native Hawaiians among those suffering from chronic and
acute disease and illness, and addressing the health needs of
Native Hawaiians (including perinatal, early child
development, and family-based health education needs), shall
be established and implemented; and
``(2) the United States--
``(A) raise the health status of Native Hawaiians by the
year 2010 to at least the levels described in the goals
contained within Healthy People 2010 (or successor
standards); and
``(B) incorporate within health programs in the United
States activities defined and identified by Kanaka Maoli,
such as--
``(i) incorporating and supporting the integration of
cultural approaches to health and well-being, including
programs using traditional practices relating to the
atmosphere (lewa lani), land ('aina), water (wai), or ocean
(kai);
``(ii) increasing the number of Native Hawaiian health and
allied-health providers who provide care to or have an impact
on the health status of Native Hawaiians;
``(iii) increasing the use of traditional Native Hawaiian
foods in--
``(I) the diets and dietary preferences of people,
including those of students; and
``(II) school feeding programs;
[[Page S665]]
``(iv) identifying and instituting Native Hawaiian cultural
values and practices within the corporate cultures of
organizations and agencies providing health services to
Native Hawaiians;
``(v) facilitating the provision of Native Hawaiian healing
practices by Native Hawaiian healers for individuals desiring
that assistance;
``(vi) supporting training and education activities and
programs in traditional Native Hawaiian healing practices by
Native Hawaiian healers; and
``(vii) demonstrating the integration of health services
for Native Hawaiians, particularly those that integrate
mental, physical, and dental services in health care.
``(c) Report.--The Secretary shall submit to the President,
for inclusion in each report required to be submitted to
Congress under section 12, a report on the progress made
toward meeting the national policy described in this section.
``SEC. 5. COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE MASTER PLAN FOR NATIVE
HAWAIIANS.
``(a) Development.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may make a grant to, or
enter into a contract with, Papa Ola Lokahi for the purpose
of coordinating, implementing, and updating a Native Hawaiian
comprehensive health care master plan that is designed--
``(A) to promote comprehensive health promotion and disease
prevention services;
``(B) to maintain and improve the health status of Native
Hawaiians; and
``(C) to support community-based initiatives that are
reflective of holistic approaches to health.
``(2) Consultation.--
``(A) In general.--In carrying out this section, Papa Ola
Lokahi and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs shall consult with
representatives of--
``(i) the Native Hawaiian health care systems;
``(ii) the Native Hawaiian health centers; and
``(iii) the Native Hawaiian community.
``(B) Memoranda of understanding.--Papa Ola Lokahi and the
Office of Hawaiian Affairs may enter into memoranda of
understanding or agreement for the purpose of acquiring joint
funding, or for such other purposes as are necessary, to
accomplish the objectives of this section.
``(3) Health care financing study report.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date
of enactment of the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement
Reauthorization Act of 2005, Papa Ola Lokahi, in cooperation
with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and other appropriate
agencies and organizations in the State (including the
Department of Health and the Department of Human Services of
the State) and appropriate Federal agencies (including the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services), shall submit to
Congress a report that describes the impact of Federal and
State health care financing mechanisms and policies on the
health and well-being of Native Hawaiians.
``(B) Components.--The report shall include--
``(i) information concerning the impact on Native Hawaiian
health and well-being of--
``(I) cultural competency;
``(II) risk assessment data;
``(III) eligibility requirements and exemptions; and
``(IV) reimbursement policies and capitation rates in
effect as of the date of the report for service providers;
``(ii) such other similar information as may be important
to improving the health status of Native Hawaiians, as that
information relates to health care financing (including
barriers to health care); and
``(iii) recommendations for submission to the Secretary,
for review and consultation with the Native Hawaiian
community.
``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out subsection (a).
``SEC. 6. FUNCTIONS OF PAPA OLA LOKAHI AND OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN
AFFAIRS.
``(a) In General.--Papa Ola Lokahi--
``(1) shall be responsible for--
``(A) the coordination, implementation, and updating, as
appropriate, of the comprehensive health care master plan
under section 5;
``(B) the training and education of individuals providing
health services;
``(C) the identification of and research (including
behavioral, biomedical, epidemiological, and health service
research) into the diseases that are most prevalent among
Native Hawaiians; and
``(D) the development and maintenance of an institutional
review board for all research projects involving all aspects
of Native Hawaiian health, including behavioral, biomedical,
epidemiological, and health service research;
``(2) may receive special project funds (including research
endowments under section 736 of the Public Health Service Act
(42 U.S.C. 293)) made available for the purpose of--
``(A) research on the health status of Native Hawaiians; or
``(B) addressing the health care needs of Native Hawaiians;
and
``(3) shall serve as a clearinghouse for--
``(A) the collection and maintenance of data associated
with the health status of Native Hawaiians;
``(B) the identification and research into diseases
affecting Native Hawaiians;
``(C) the availability of Native Hawaiian project funds,
research projects, and publications;
``(D) the collaboration of research in the area of Native
Hawaiian health; and
``(E) the timely dissemination of information pertinent to
the Native Hawaiian health care systems.
``(b) Consultation.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary and the Secretary of each
other Federal agency shall--
``(A) consult with Papa Ola Lokahi; and
``(B) provide Papa Ola Lokahi and the Office of Hawaiian
Affairs, at least once annually, an accounting of funds and
services provided by the Secretary to assist in accomplishing
the purposes described in section 4.
``(2) Components of accounting.--The accounting under
paragraph (1)(B) shall include an identification of--
``(A) the amount of funds expended explicitly for and
benefiting Native Hawaiians;
``(B) the number of Native Hawaiians affected by those
funds;
``(C) the collaborations between the applicable Federal
agency and Native Hawaiian groups and organizations in the
expenditure of those funds; and
``(D) the amount of funds used for--
``(i) Federal administrative purposes; and
``(ii) the provision of direct services to Native
Hawaiians.
``(c) Fiscal Allocation and Coordination of Programs and
Services.--
``(1) Recommendations.--Papa Ola Lokahi shall provide
annual recommendations to the Secretary with respect to the
allocation of all amounts made available under this Act.
``(2) Coordination.--Papa Ola Lokahi shall, to the maximum
extent practicable, coordinate and assist the health care
programs and services provided to Native Hawaiians under this
Act and other Federal laws.
``(3) Representation on commission.--The Secretary, in
consultation with Papa Ola Lokahi, shall make recommendations
for Native Hawaiian representation on the President's
Advisory Commission on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.
``(d) Technical Support.--Papa Ola Lokahi shall provide
statewide infrastructure to provide technical support and
coordination of training and technical assistance to--
``(1) the Native Hawaiian health care systems; and
``(2) the Native Hawaiian health centers.
``(e) Relationships With Other Agencies.--
``(1) Authority.--Papa Ola Lokahi may enter into agreements
or memoranda of understanding with relevant institutions,
agencies, or organizations that are capable of providing--
``(A) health-related resources or services to Native
Hawaiians and the Native Hawaiian health care systems; or
``(B) resources or services for the implementation of the
national policy described in section 4.
``(2) Health care financing.--
``(A) Federal consultation.--
``(i) In general.--Before adopting any policy, rule, or
regulation that may affect the provision of services or
health insurance coverage for Native Hawaiians, a Federal
agency that provides health care financing and carries out
health care programs (including the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services) shall consult with representatives of--
``(I) the Native Hawaiian community;
``(II) Papa Ola Lokahi; and
``(III) organizations providing health care services to
Native Hawaiians in the State.
``(ii) Identification of effects.--Any consultation by a
Federal agency under clause (i) shall include an
identification of the effect of any policy, rule, or
regulation proposed by the Federal agency.
``(B) State consultation.--Before making any change in an
existing program or implementing any new program relating to
Native Hawaiian health, the State shall engage in meaningful
consultation with representatives of--
``(i) the Native Hawaiian community;
``(ii) Papa Ola Lokahi; and
``(iii) organizations providing health care services to
Native Hawaiians in the State.
``(C) Consultation on federal health insurance programs.--
``(i) In general.--The Office of Hawaiian Affairs, in
collaboration with Papa Ola Lokahi, may develop consultative,
contractual, or other arrangements, including memoranda of
understanding or agreement, with--
``(I) the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services;
``(II) the agency of the State that administers or
supervises the administration of the State plan or waiver
approved under title XVIII, XIX, or XXI of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) for the payment of all
or a part of the health care services provided to Native
Hawaiians who are eligible for medical assistance under the
State plan or waiver; or
``(III) any other Federal agency providing full or partial
health insurance to Native Hawaiians.
``(ii) Contents of arrangements.--An arrangement under
clause (i) may address--
``(I) appropriate reimbursement for health care services,
including capitation rates and fee-for-service rates for
Native Hawaiians who are entitled to or eligible for
insurance;
``(II) the scope of services; or
[[Page S666]]
``(III) other matters that would enable Native Hawaiians to
maximize health insurance benefits provided by Federal and
State health insurance programs.
``(3) Traditional healers.--
``(A) In general.--The provision of health services under
any program operated by the Department or another Federal
agency (including the Department of Veterans Affairs) may
include the services of--
``(i) traditional Native Hawaiian healers; or
``(ii) traditional healers providing traditional health
care practices (as those terms are defined in section 4 of
the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1603).
``(B) Exemption.--Services described in subparagraph (A)
shall be exempt from national accreditation reviews,
including reviews conducted by--
``(i) the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare
Organizations; and
``(ii) the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation
Facilities.
``SEC. 7. NATIVE HAWAIIAN HEALTH CARE.
``(a) Comprehensive Health Promotion, Disease Prevention,
and Other Health Services.--
``(1) Grants and contracts.--The Secretary, in consultation
with Papa Ola Lokahi, may make grants to, or enter into
contracts with 1 or more Native Hawaiian health care systems
for the purpose of providing comprehensive health promotion
and disease prevention services, as well as other health
services, to Native Hawaiians who desire and are committed to
bettering their own health.
``(2) Limitation on number of entities.--The Secretary may
make a grant to, or enter into a contract with, not more than
8 Native Hawaiian health care systems under this subsection
for any fiscal year.
``(b) Planning Grant or Contract.--In addition to grants
and contracts under subsection (a), the Secretary may make a
grant to, or enter into a contract with, Papa Ola Lokahi for
the purpose of planning Native Hawaiian health care systems
to serve the health needs of Native Hawaiian communities on
each of the islands of O`ahu, Moloka`i, Maui, Hawai`i,
Lana`i, Kaua`i, Kaho`lawe, and Ni`ihau in the State.
``(c) Health Services To Be Provided.--
``(1) In general.--Each recipient of funds under subsection
(a) may provide or arrange for--
``(A) outreach services to inform and assist Native
Hawaiians in accessing health services;
``(B) education in health promotion and disease prevention
for Native Hawaiians that, wherever practicable, is provided
by--
``(i) Native Hawaiian health care practitioners;
``(ii) community outreach workers;
``(iii) counselors;
``(iv) cultural educators; and
``(v) other disease prevention providers;
``(C) services of individuals providing health services;
``(D) collection of data relating to the prevention of
diseases and illnesses among Native Hawaiians; and
``(E) support of culturally appropriate activities that
enhance health and wellness, including land-based, water-
based, ocean-based, and spiritually-based projects and
programs.
``(2) Traditional healers.--The health care services
referred to in paragraph (1) that are provided under grants
or contracts under subsection (a) may be provided by
traditional Native Hawaiian healers, as appropriate.
``(d) Federal Tort Claims Act.--An individual who provides
a medical, dental, or other service referred to in subsection
(a)(1) for a Native Hawaiian health care system, including a
provider of a traditional Native Hawaiian healing service,
shall be--
``(1) treated as if the individual were a member of the
Public Health Service; and
``(2) subject to section 224 of the Public Health Service
Act (42 U.S.C. 233).
``(e) Site for Other Federal Payments.--
``(1) In general.--A Native Hawaiian health care system
that receives funds under subsection (a) may serve as a
Federal loan repayment facility.
``(2) Remission of payments.--A facility described in
paragraph (1) shall be designed to enable health and allied-
health professionals to remit payments with respect to loans
provided to the professionals under any Federal loan program.
``(f) Restriction on Use of Grant and Contract Funds.--The
Secretary shall not make a grant to, or enter into a contract
with, an entity under subsection (a) unless the entity agrees
that amounts received under the grant or contract will not,
directly or through contract, be expended--
``(1) for any service other than a service described in
subsection (c)(1);
``(2) to purchase or improve real property (other than
minor remodeling of existing improvements to real property);
or
``(3) to purchase major medical equipment.
``(g) Limitation on Charges for Services.--The Secretary
shall not make a grant to, or enter into a contract with, an
entity under subsection (a) unless the entity agrees that,
whether health services are provided directly or under a
contract--
``(1) any health service under the grant or contract will
be provided without regard to the ability of an individual
receiving the health service to pay for the health service;
and
``(2) the entity will impose for the delivery of such a
health service a charge that is--
``(A) made according to a schedule of charges that is made
available to the public; and
``(B) adjusted to reflect the income of the individual
involved.
``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) General grants.--There are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
subsection (a) for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2011.
``(2) Planning grants.--There are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
subsection (b) for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2011.
``(3) Health services.--There are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
subsection (c) for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2011.
``SEC. 8. ADMINISTRATIVE GRANT FOR PAPA OLA LOKAHI.
``(a) In General.--In addition to any other grant or
contract under this Act, the Secretary may make grants to, or
enter into contracts with, Papa Ola Lokahi for--
``(1) coordination, implementation, and updating (as
appropriate) of the comprehensive health care master plan
developed under section 5;
``(2) training and education for providers of health
services;
``(3) identification of and research (including behavioral,
biomedical, epidemiologic, and health service research) into
the diseases that are most prevalent among Native Hawaiians;
``(4) a clearinghouse function for--
``(A) the collection and maintenance of data associated
with the health status of Native Hawaiians;
``(B) the identification and research into diseases
affecting Native Hawaiians; and
``(C) the availability of Native Hawaiian project funds,
research projects, and publications;
``(5) the establishment and maintenance of an institutional
review board for all health-related research involving Native
Hawaiians;
``(6) the coordination of the health care programs and
services provided to Native Hawaiians; and
``(7) the administration of special project funds.
``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out subsection (a) for each of fiscal years 2006
through 2011.
``SEC. 9. ADMINISTRATION OF GRANTS AND CONTRACTS.
``(a) Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary shall include in
any grant made or contract entered into under this Act such
terms and conditions as the Secretary considers necessary or
appropriate to ensure that the objectives of the grant or
contract are achieved.
``(b) Periodic Review.--The Secretary shall periodically
evaluate the performance of, and compliance with, grants and
contracts under this Act.
``(c) Administrative Requirements.--The Secretary shall not
make a grant or enter into a contract under this Act with an
entity unless the entity--
``(1) agrees to establish such procedures for fiscal
control and fund accounting as the Secretary determines are
necessary to ensure proper disbursement and accounting with
respect to the grant or contract;
``(2) agrees to ensure the confidentiality of records
maintained on individuals receiving health services under the
grant or contract;
``(3) with respect to providing health services to any
population of Native Hawaiians, a substantial portion of
which has a limited ability to speak the English language--
``(A) has developed and has the ability to carry out a
reasonable plan to provide health services under the grant or
contract through individuals who are able to communicate with
the population involved in the language and cultural context
that is most appropriate; and
``(B) has designated at least 1 individual who is fluent in
English and the appropriate language to assist in carrying
out the plan;
``(4) with respect to health services that are covered
under a program under title XVIII, XIX, or XXI of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) (including any State
plan), or under any other Federal health insurance plan--
``(A) if the entity will provide under the grant or
contract any of those health services directly--
``(i) has entered into a participation agreement under each
such plan; and
``(ii) is qualified to receive payments under the plan; and
``(B) if the entity will provide under the grant or
contract any of those health services through a contract with
an organization--
``(i) ensures that the organization has entered into a
participation agreement under each such plan; and
``(ii) ensures that the organization is qualified to
receive payments under the plan; and
``(5) agrees to submit to the Secretary and Papa Ola Lokahi
an annual report that--
``(A) describes the use and costs of health services
provided under the grant or contract (including the average
cost of health services per user); and
``(B) provides such other information as the Secretary
determines to be appropriate.
``(d) Contract Evaluation.--
``(1) Determination of noncompliance.--If, as a result of
evaluations conducted by the
[[Page S667]]
Secretary, the Secretary determines that an entity has not
complied with or satisfactorily performed a contract entered
into under section 7, the Secretary shall, before renewing
the contract--
``(A) attempt to resolve the areas of noncompliance or
unsatisfactory performance; and
``(B) modify the contract to prevent future occurrences of
the noncompliance or unsatisfactory performance.
``(2) Nonrenewal.--If the Secretary determines that the
noncompliance or unsatisfactory performance described in
paragraph (1) with respect to an entity cannot be resolved
and prevented in the future, the Secretary--
``(A) shall not renew the contract with the entity; and
``(B) may enter into a contract under section 7 with
another entity referred to in section 7(a)(3) that provides
services to the same population of Native Hawaiians served
by the entity the contract with which was not renewed by
reason of this paragraph.
``(3) Consideration of results.--In determining whether to
renew a contract entered into with an entity under this Act,
the Secretary shall consider the results of the evaluations
conducted under this section.
``(4) Application of federal laws.--Each contract entered
into by the Secretary under this Act shall be in accordance
with all Federal contracting laws (including regulations),
except that, in the discretion of the Secretary, such a
contract may--
``(A) be negotiated without advertising; and
``(B) be exempted from subchapter III of chapter 31, United
States Code.
``(5) Payments.--A payment made under any contract entered
into under this Act--
``(A) may be made--
``(i) in advance;
``(ii) by means of reimbursement; or
``(iii) in installments; and
``(B) shall be made on such conditions as the Secretary
determines to be necessary to carry out this Act.
``(e) Report.--
``(1) In general.--For each fiscal year during which an
entity receives or expends funds under a grant or contract
under this Act, the entity shall submit to the Secretary and
to Papa Ola Lokahi an annual report that describes--
``(A) the activities conducted by the entity under the
grant or contract;
``(B) the amounts and purposes for which Federal funds were
expended; and
``(C) such other information as the Secretary may request.
``(2) Audits.--The reports and records of any entity
concerning any grant or contract under this Act shall be
subject to audit by--
``(A) the Secretary;
``(B) the Inspector General of the Department of Health and
Human Services; and
``(C) the Comptroller General of the United States.
``(f) Annual Private Audit.--The Secretary shall allow as a
cost of any grant made or contract entered into under this
Act the cost of an annual private audit conducted by a
certified public accountant to carry out this section.
``SEC. 10. ASSIGNMENT OF PERSONNEL.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary may enter into an
agreement with Papa Ola Lokahi or any of the Native Hawaiian
health care systems for the assignment of personnel of the
Department of Health and Human Services with relevant
expertise for the purpose of--
``(1) conducting research; or
``(2) providing comprehensive health promotion and disease
prevention services and health services to Native Hawaiians.
``(b) Applicable Federal Personnel Provisions.--Any
assignment of personnel made by the Secretary under any
agreement entered into under subsection (a) shall be treated
as an assignment of Federal personnel to a local government
that is made in accordance with subchapter VI of chapter 33
of title 5, United States Code.
``SEC. 11. NATIVE HAWAIIAN HEALTH SCHOLARSHIPS AND
FELLOWSHIPS.
``(a) Eligibility.--Subject to the availability of amounts
appropriated under subsection (c), the Secretary shall
provide to Papa Ola Lokahi, through a direct grant or a
cooperative agreement, funds for the purpose of providing
scholarship and fellowship assistance, counseling, and
placement service assistance to students who are Native
Hawaiians.
``(b) Priority.--A priority for scholarships under
subsection (a) may be provided to employees of--
``(1) the Native Hawaiian Health Care Systems; and
``(2) the Native Hawaiian Health Centers.
``(c) Terms and Conditions.--
``(1) Scholarship assistance.--
``(A) In general.--The scholarship assistance under
subsection (a) shall be provided in accordance with
subparagraphs (B) through (G).
``(B) Need.--The provision of scholarships in each type of
health profession training shall correspond to the need for
each type of health professional to serve the Native Hawaiian
community in providing health services, as identified by Papa
Ola Lokahi.
``(C) Eligible applicants.--To the maximum extent
practicable, the Secretary shall select scholarship
recipients from a list of eligible applicants submitted by
Papa Ola Lokahi.
``(D) Obligated service requirement.--
``(i) In general.--An obligated service requirement for
each scholarship recipient (except for a recipient receiving
assistance under paragraph (2)) shall be fulfilled through
service, in order of priority, in--
``(I) any of the Native Hawaiian health care systems;
``(II) any of the Native Hawaiian health centers;
``(III) 1 or more health professions shortage areas,
medically underserved areas, or geographic areas or
facilities similarly designated by the Public Health Service
in the State;
``(IV) a Native Hawaiian organization that serves a
geographical area, facility, or organization that serves a
significant Native Hawaiian population;
``(V) any public agency or nonprofit organization providing
services to Native Hawaiians; or
``(VI) any of the uniformed services of the United States.
``(ii) Assignment.--The placement service for a scholarship
shall assign each Native Hawaiian scholarship recipient to 1
or more appropriate sites for service in accordance with
clause (i).
``(E) Counseling, retention, and support services.--The
provision of academic and personal counseling, retention and
other support services--
``(i) shall not be limited to scholarship recipients under
this section; and
``(ii) shall be made available to recipients of other
scholarship and financial aid programs enrolled in
appropriate health professions training programs.
``(F) Financial assistance.--After consultation with Papa
Ola Lokahi, financial assistance may be provided to a
scholarship recipient during the period that the recipient is
fulfilling the service requirement of the recipient in any
of--
``(i) the Native Hawaiian health care systems; or
``(ii) the Native Hawaiians health centers.
``(G) Distance learning recipients.--A scholarship may be
provided to a Native Hawaiian who is enrolled in an
appropriate distance learning program offered by an
accredited educational institution.
``(2) Fellowships.--
``(A) In general.--Papa Ola Lokahi may provide financial
assistance in the form of a fellowship to a Native Hawaiian
health professional who is--
``(i) a Native Hawaiian community health representative,
outreach worker, or health program administrator in a
professional training program;
``(ii) a Native Hawaiian providing health services; or
``(iii) a Native Hawaiian enrolled in a certificated
program provided by traditional Native Hawaiian healers in
any of the traditional Native Hawaiian healing practices
(including lomi-lomi, la`au lapa`au, and ho`oponopono).
``(B) Types of assistance.--Assistance under subparagraph
(A) may include a stipend for, or reimbursement for costs
associated with, participation in a program described in that
paragraph.
``(3) Rights and benefits.--An individual who is a health
professional designated in section 338A of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254l) who receives a scholarship under
this subsection while fulfilling a service requirement under
that Act shall retain the same rights and benefits as members
of the National Health Service Corps during the period of
service.
``(4) No inclusion of assistance in gross income.--
Financial assistance provided under this section shall be
considered to be qualified scholarships for the purpose of
section 117 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out subsections (a) and (c)(2) for each of fiscal years
2006 through 2011.
``SEC. 12. REPORT.
``For each fiscal year, the President shall, at the time at
which the budget of the United States is submitted under
section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, submit to
Congress a report on the progress made in meeting the
purposes of this Act, including--
``(1) a review of programs established or assisted in
accordance with this Act; and
``(2) an assessment of and recommendations for additional
programs or additional assistance necessary to provide, at a
minimum, health services to Native Hawaiians, and ensure a
health status for Native Hawaiians, that are at a parity with
the health services available to, and the health status of,
the general population.
``SEC. 13. USE OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES AND SOURCES
OF SUPPLY.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall permit an
organization that enters into a contract or receives grant
under this Act to use in carrying out projects or activities
under the contract or grant all existing facilities under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary (including all equipment of the
facilities), in accordance with such terms and conditions as
may be agreed on for the use and maintenance of the
facilities or equipment.
``(b) Donation of Property.--The Secretary may donate to an
organization that enters into a contract or receives grant
under this Act, for use in carrying out a project or activity
under the contract or grant, any personal or real property
determined to be in excess of the needs of the Department or
the General Services Administration.
[[Page S668]]
``(c) Acquisition of Surplus Property.--The Secretary may
acquire excess or surplus Federal Government personal or real
property for donation to an organization under subsection (b)
if the Secretary determines that the property is appropriate
for use by the organization for the purpose for which a
contract entered into or grant received by the organization
is authorized under this Act.
``SEC. 14. DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE.
``(a) Authority and Areas of Interest.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with Papa
Ola Lokahi, may allocate amounts made available under this
Act, or any other Act, to carry out Native Hawaiian
demonstration projects of national significance.
``(2) Areas of interest.--A demonstration project described
in paragraph (1) may relate to such areas of interest as--
``(A) the development of a centralized database and
information system relating to the health care status, health
care needs, and wellness of Native Hawaiians;
``(B) the education of health professionals, and other
individuals in institutions of higher learning, in health and
allied health programs in healing practices, including Native
Hawaiian healing practices;
``(C) the integration of Western medicine with
complementary healing practices, including traditional Native
Hawaiian healing practices;
``(D) the use of telehealth and telecommunications in--
``(i) chronic and infectious disease management; and
``(ii) health promotion and disease prevention;
``(E) the development of appropriate models of health care
for Native Hawaiians and other indigenous people, including--
``(i) the provision of culturally competent health
services;
``(ii) related activities focusing on wellness concepts;
``(iii) the development of appropriate kupuna care
programs; and
``(iv) the development of financial mechanisms and
collaborative relationships leading to universal access to
health care; and
``(F) the establishment of--
``(i) a Native Hawaiian Center of Excellence for Nursing at
the University of Hawaii at Hilo;
``(ii) a Native Hawaiian Center of Excellence for Mental
Health at the University of Hawaii at Manoa;
``(iii) a Native Hawaiian Center of Excellence for Maternal
Health and Nutrition at the Waimanalo Health Center;
``(iv) a Native Hawaiian Center of Excellence for Research,
Training, Integrated Medicine at Molokai General Hospital;
and
``(v) a Native Hawaiian Center of Excellence for
Complementary Health and Health Education and Training at the
Waianae Coast Comprehensive Health Center.
``(3) Centers of excellence.--Papa Ola Lokahi, and any
centers established under paragraph (2)(F), shall be
considered to be qualified as Centers of Excellence under
sections 485F and 903(b)(2)(A) of the Public Health Service
Act (42 U.S.C. 287c-32, 299a-1).
``(b) Nonreduction in Other Funding.--The allocation of
funds for demonstration projects under subsection (a) shall
not result in any reduction in funds required by the Native
Hawaiian health care systems, the Native Hawaiian Health
Centers, the Native Hawaiian Health Scholarship Program, or
Papa Ola Lokahi to carry out the respective responsibilities
of those entities under this Act.
``SEC. 15. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
``Nothing in this Act restricts the authority of the State
to require licensing of, and issue licenses to, health
practitioners.
``SEC. 16. COMPLIANCE WITH BUDGET ACT.
``Any new spending authority described in subparagraph (A)
or (B) of section 401(c)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 651(c)(2)) that is provided under this Act
shall be effective for any fiscal year only to such extent or
in such amounts as are provided for in Acts of appropriation.
``SEC. 17. SEVERABILITY.
``If any provision of this Act, or the application of any
such provision to any person or circumstance, is determined
by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the
remainder of this Act, and the application of the provision
to a person or circumstance other than that to which the
provision is held invalid, shall not be affected by that
holding.''.
______
By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 216. A bill for the relief of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada for
settlement of certain claims against the United States; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, almost ten years ago, I stood before you
to introduce a bill ``to provide an opportunity for the Pottawatomi
Nation in Canada to have the merits of their claims against the United
States determined by the United States Court of Federal Claims.''
That bill was introduced as Senate Resolution 223, which referred the
Pottawatomi's claim to the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal
Claims and required the Chief Judge to report back to the Senate and
provide sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to enable
the Congress to determine whether the claim of the Pottawatomi Nation
in Canada is legal or equitable in nature, and the amount of damages,
if any, which may be legally or equitably due from the United States.
Five years ago, the Chief Judge of the Court of Federal Claims
reported back that the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has a legitimate
and credible legal claim. Thereafter, by settlement stipulation, the
United States has taken the position that it would be ``fair, just and
equitable'' to settle the claims of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada
for the sum of $1,830,000. This settlement amount was reached by the
parties after seven years of extensive, fact-intensive litigation.
Independently, the court concluded that the settlement amount is ``not
a gratuity'' and that the ``settlement was predicated on a credible
legal claim.'' Pottawatomi Nation in Canada, et al. v. United States,
Cong. Ref. 94-1037X at 28 (Ct. Fed. Cl., September 15, 2000) (Report of
Hearing Officer).
The bill I introduce today is to authorize the appropriation of those
funds that the United States has concluded would be ``fair, just and
equitable'' to satisfy this legal claim. If enacted, this bill will
finally achieve a measure of justice for a tribal nation that has for
far too long been denied.
For the information of our colleagues, this is the historical
background that informs the underlying legal claim of the Canadian
Pottawatomi.
The members of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada are one of the
descendant groups--successors-in-interest--of the historical
Pottawatomi Nation and their claim originates in the latter part of the
18th century. The historical Pottawatomi Nation was aboriginal to the
United States. They occupied and possessed a vast expanse in what is
now the States of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, llinois, and Wisconsin. From
1795 to 1833, the United States annexed most of the traditional land of
the Pottawatomi Nation through a series of treaties of cession--many of
these cessions were made under extreme duress and the threat of
military action. In exchange, the Pottawatomis were repeatedly made
promises that the remainder of their lands would be secure and, in
addition, that the United States would pay certain annuities to the
Pottawatomi.
In 1829, the United States formally adopted a Federal the policy of
removal--an effort to remove all Indian tribes from their traditional
lands east of the Mississippi River to the west. As part of that
effort, the government increasingly pressured the Pottawatomis to cede
the remainder of their traditional lands--some five million acres in
and around the city of Chicago and remove themselves west. For years,
the Pottawatomis steadfastly refused to cede the remainder of their
tribal territory. Then in 1833, the United States, pressed by settlers
seeking more land, sent a Treaty Commission to the Pottawatomi with
orders to extract a cession of the remaining lands. The Treaty
Commissioners spent 2 weeks using extraordinarily coercive tactics--
including threats of war--in an attempt to get the Pottawatomis to
agree to cede their territory. Finally, those Pottawatomis who were
present relented and on September 26, 1933, they ceded their remaining
tribal estate through what would be known as the Treaty of Chicago.
Seventy-seven members of the Pottawatomi Nation signed the Treaty of
Chicago. Members of the ``Wisconsin Band'' were not present and did not
assent to the cession.
In exchange for their land, the Treaty of Chicago provided that the
United States would give to the Pottawatomis 5 million acres of
comparable land in what is now Missouri. The Pottawatomi were familiar
with the Missouri land, aware that it was similar to their homeland.
But the Senate refused to ratify that negotiated agreement and
unilaterally switched the land to five million acres in Iowa. The
Treaty Commissioners were sent back to acquire Pottawatomi assent to
the Iowa land. All but seven of the original 77 signatories refused to
accept the change even with promises that if they were dissatisfied
``justice would be
[[Page S669]]
done.'' Treaty of Chicago, as amended, Article 4. Nevertheless, the
Treaty of Chicago was ratified as amended by the Senate in 1834.
Subsequently, the Pottawatomis sent a delegation to evaluate the land
in Iowa. The delegation reported back that the land was ``not fit for
snakes to live on.''
While some Pottawatomis removed westward, many of the Pottawatomis--
particularly the Wisconsin Band, whose leaders never agreed to the
Treaty--refused to do so. By 1836, the United States began to
forcefully remove Pottawatomis who remained in the east--with
devastating consequences. As is true with many other American Indian
tribes, the forced removal westward came at great human cost. Many of
the Pottawatomi were forcefully removed by mercenaries who were paid on
a per capita basis government contract. Over one-half of the Indians
removed by these means died en route. Those who reached Iowa were
almost immediately removed further to inhospitable parts of Kansas
against their will and without their consent.
Knowing of these conditions, many of the Pottawatomis including most
of those in the Wisconsin Band vigorously resisted forced removal. To
avoid Federal troops and mercenaries, much of the Wisconsin Band
ultimately found it necessary to flee to Canada. They were often
pursued to the border by government troops, government-paid mercenaries
or both. Official files of the Canadian and United States governments
disclose that many Pottawatomis were forced to leave their homes
without their horses or any of their possessions other than the clothes
on their backs.
By the late 1830s, the government refused payment of annuities to any
Pottawatomi groups that had not removed west. In the 1860s, members of
the Wisconsin Band--those still in their traditional territory and
those forced to flee to Canada--petitioned Congress for the payment of
their treaty annuities promised under the Treaty of Chicago and all
other cession treaties. By the Act of June 25, 1864 (13 Stat. 172) the
Congress declared that the Wisconsin Band did not forfeit their
annuities by not removing and directed that the share of the
Pottawatomi Indians who had refused to relocate to the west should be
retained for their use in the United States Treasury. (H.R. Rep. No.
470, 64th Cong., p. 5, as quoted on page 3 of memo dated October 7,
1949). Nevertheless, much of the money was never paid to the Wisconsin
Band.
In 1903, the Wisconsin Band--most of whom now resided in three areas,
the States of Michigan and Wisconsin and the Province of Ontario--
petitioned the Senate once again to pay them their fair portion of
annuities as required by the law and treaties. (Sen. Doc. No. 185, 57th
Cong., 2d Sess.) By the Act of June 21, 1906 (34 Stat. 380), the
Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to investigate claims
made by the Wisconsin Band and establish a roll of the Wisconsin Band
Pottawatomis that still remained in the East. In addition, the Congress
ordered the Secretary to determine ``the[] [Wisconsin Bands]
proportionate shares of the annuities, trust funds, and other moneys
paid to or expended for the tribe to which they belong in which the
claimant Indians have not shared, [and] the amount of such monies
retained in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the
clamant Indians as directed the provision of the Act of June 25,
1864.''
In order to carry out the 1906 Act, the Secretary of Interior
directed Dr. W.M. Wooster to conduct an enumeration of Wisconsin Band
Pottawatomi in both the United States and Canada. Dr. Wooster
documented 2007 Wisconsin Pottawatomis: 457 in Wisconsin and Michigan
and 1550 in Canada. He also concluded that the proportionate share of
annuities for the Pottawatomis in Wisconsin and Michigan was $477,339
and that the proportionate share of annuities due the Pottawatomi
Nation in Canada was $1,517,226. The Congress thereafter enacted a
series of appropriation Acts from June 30, 1913 to May 29, 1928 to
satisfy most of money owed to those Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis
residing in the United States. However, the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis
who resided in Canada were never paid their share of the tribal funds.
Since that time, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has diligently and
continuously sought to enforce their treaty rights, although until this
congressional reference, they had never been provided their day in
court. In 1910, the United States and Great Britain entered into an
agreement for the purpose of dealing with claims between both
countries, including claims of Indian tribes within their respective
jurisdictions, by creating the Pecuniary Claims Tribunal. From 1910 to
1938, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada diligently sought to have their
claim heard in this international forum. Overlooked for more pressing
international matters of the period, including the intervention of
World War I, the Pottawatomis then came to the U.S. Congress for
redress of their claim.
In 1946, the Congress waived its sovereign immunity and established
the Indian Claims Commission for the purpose of granting tribes their
long-delayed day in court. The Indian Claims Commission Act (ICCA)
granted the Commission jurisdiction over claims such as the type
involved here. In 1948, the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis from both sides
of the border--brought suit together in the Indian Claims Commission
for recovery of damages. Hannahville Indian Community v. U.S., No. 28
(Ind. Cl. Comm. Filed May 4, 1948). Unfortunately, the Indian Claims
Commission dismissed Pottawatomi Nation in Canada's part of the claim
ruling that the Commission had no jurisdiction to consider claims of
Indians living outside territorial limits of the United States.
Hannahville Indian Community v. U.S., 115 Ct. Cl. 823 (1950). The claim
of the Wisconsin Band residing in the United States that was filed in
the Indian Claims Commission was finally decided in favor of the
Wisconsin Band by the U.S. Claims Court in 1983. Hannahville Indian
Community v. United States, 4 Ct. Cl. 445 (1983). The Court of Claims
concluded that the Wisconsin Band was owed a member's proportionate
share of unpaid annuities from 1838 through 1907 due under various
treaties, including the Treaty of Chicago and entered judgment for the
American Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis for any monies not paid. Still the
Pottawatomi Nation in Canada was excluded because of the jurisdictional
limits of the ICCA.
Undaunted, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada came to the Senate and
after careful consideration, we finally gave them their long-awaited
day in court through the congressional reference process. The court has
now reported back to us that their claim is meritorious and that the
payment that this bill would make constitutes a ``fair, just and
equitable'' resolution to this claim.
The Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has sought justice for over 150
years. They have done all that we asked in order to establish their
claim. Now it is time for us to finally live up to the promise our
government made so many years ago. It will not correct all the wrongs
of the past, but it is a demonstration that this government is willing
to admit when it has left unfulfilled an obligation and that the United
States is willing to do what we can to see that justice--so long
delayed is not now denied.
Finally, I would just note that the claim of the Pottawatomi Nation
in Canada is supported through specific resolutions by the National
Congress of American Indians (the oldest, largest and most-
representative tribal organization here in the United States), the
Assembly of First Nations (which includes all recognized tribal
entities in Canada), and each and every of the Pottawatomi tribal
groups that remain in the United States today.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 216
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN CLAIMS.
(a) Authorization for Payment.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, subject to subsection (b), the Secretary of
the Treasury shall pay to the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada
$1,830,000 from amounts appropriated under section 1304 of
title 31, United States Code.
(b) Payment in Accordance With Stipulation for
Recommendation of Settlement.--The payment under subsection
(a) shall--
(1) be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of
the Stipulation for Recommendation of Settlement dated May
22,
[[Page S670]]
2000, entered into between the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada
and the United States (referred to in this Act as the
``Stipulation for Recommendation of Settlement''); and
(2) be included in the report of the Chief Judge of the
United States Court of Federal Claims regarding Congressional
Reference No. 94-1037X, submitted to the Senate on January 4,
2001, in accordance with sections 1492 and 2509 of title 28,
United States Code.
(c) Full Satisfaction of Claims.--The payment under
subsection (a) shall be in full satisfaction of all claims of
the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada against the United States
that are referred to or described in the Stipulation for
Recommendation of Settlement.
(d) Nonapplicability.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, the Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use or Distribution
Act (25 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) does not apply to the payment
under subsection (a).
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska,
Ms. Collins, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Grassley, Mr.
Jeffords, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Pryor, Mr.
Levin, and Mr. Specter):
S. 217. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to preserve the
essential air service program; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with 13 other Senators to
introduce the bipartisan Essential Air Service Preservation Act of
2005. I am pleased to have my colleague Senator Snowe as the principal
cosponsor of the bill. Senator Snowe has been a long-time champion of
commercial air service in rural areas, and I appreciate her continued
leadership on this important legislation. Senators Ben Nelson, Collins,
Rockefeller, Harkin, Grassley, Jeffords, Schumer, Leahy, Clinton,
Pryor, Levin, and Specter are also cosponsors of the bill.
Congress established the Essential Air Service Program in 1978 to
ensure that communities that had commercial air service before airline
deregulation could continue to receive scheduled service. Without EAS,
many rural communities would have no commercial air service at all.
Our bill is very simple. It preserves Congress' intent in the
Essential Air Service program by repealing a provision in the 2003 FAA
reauthorization bill that would for the first time require communities
to pay for their commercial air service. The legislation that imposed
mandatory cost sharing on communities to retain their commercial air
service had been stricken from both the House and Senate versions of
the FAA reauthorization bill, but was reinserted by conferees. I
believe that any program that forces communities to pay to continue to
receive their commercial air service could well be the first step in
the total elimination of scheduled air service for many rural
communities.
Two times since mandatory cost sharing was enacted Congress has
blocked it from being implemented. For fiscal years 2004 and 2005, a
bipartisan group of senators included language in the Department of
Transportation's appropriations act that bars the use of funds to
implement any mandatory cost sharing program. This bill would simply
make Congress' ongoing ban permanent.
All across America, small communities face ever-increasing hurdles to
promoting their economic growth and development. Today, many rural
areas lack access to interstate or even four-lane highways, railroads
or broadband telecommunications. Business development in rural areas
frequently hinges on the availability of scheduled air service. For
small communities, commercial air service provides a critical link to
the national and international transportation system.
The Essential Air Service Program currently ensures commercial air
service to over 100 communities in thirty-four states. EAS supports an
additional 33 communities in Alaska. Because of increasing costs and
the continuing financial turndown in the aviation industry,
particularly among commuter airlines, about 28 additional communities
have been forced into the EAS program since the terrorist attacks in
2001.
In my State of New Mexico, five cities currently rely on EAS for
their commercial air service. The communities are Clovis, Hobbs,
Carlsbad, Alamogordo and my hometown of Silver City. In each case
commercial service is provided to Albuquerque, the state's business
center and largest city.
I believe this ill-conceived proposal requiring cities to pay to
continue to have commercial air service could not come at a worse time
for small communities already facing depressed economies and declining
tax revenues.
As I understand it, the mandatory cost-sharing requirements in the
FAA reauthorization bill could affect communities in as many as 22
states. Based on an analysis by my staff, the individual cities that
could be affected are as follows:
Alabama--Muscle Shoals; Arizona--Prescott, Kingman;
Arkansas--Hot Springs, Harrison, Jonesboro; Colorado--Pueblo;
Georgia--Athens; Iowa--Fort Dodge, Burlington; Kansas--
Salina; Kentucky--Owensboro; Maine--Augusta, Rockland;
Michigan--Iron Mt.; Mississippi Laurel; Missouri--Joplin, Ft.
Leonard Wood; New Hampshire--Lebanon; New Mexico--Hobbs,
Alamogordo, Clovis; New York--Watertown, Jamestown,
Plattsburgh; Oklahoma--Ponca City, Enid; Pennsylvania--
Johnstown, Oil City, Bradford, Altoona; South Dakota--
Brookings, Watertown; Tennessee--Jackson; Texas--Victoria;
Vermont--Rutland; Washington--Moses Lake
As I see it, the choice here is clear: If we do not preserve the
Essential Air Service Program today, we could soon see the end of all
commercial air service in rural areas. The EAS program provides vital
resources that help link rural communities to the national and global
aviation system. Our bill will preserve the essential air service
program and help ensure that affordable, reliable, and safe air service
remains available in rural America. Congress is already on record
opposing mandatory cost sharing. I hope all Senators will once again
join us in opposing this attack on rural America.
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. 217
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 ``Essential Air Service
Preservation Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF EAS LOCAL PARTICIPATION PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 417 of title 49,
United States Code, is amended by striking section 41747, and
such title shall be applied as if such section 41747 had not
been enacted.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by striking the item
relating to section 41747.
______
By Mr. KOHL:
S. 218. A bill to amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to provide
incentives to landowners to protect and improve streams and riparian
habitat; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
MR. KOHL. Mr. President, there are a number of different conservation
programs aimed at farmers, with a variety of goals. While many of those
programs improve water quality and stream health, none are primarily
focused with improving fish habitat. The bill I am introducing today
would focus USDA conservation dollars on restoring high quality fish
habitat in streams around rural America.
While there are millions of miles of streams throughout the country,
few of these streams are able to support the kind of first rate
fisheries that they have in the past. Agriculture and industry have
altered riverbeds over the years, slowing the movement of water for
their own purposes. The EPA and the Fish and Wildlife Service have
found that 81 percent of all stream fish habitats in the U.S. have been
adversely affected by either pollution or other disturbances. In places
where alterations in the river are no longer needed, they should be
removed to restore the ecosystem for the native fish.
Clean, fresh, fast moving streams are a necessary requirement for
some of our most popular game fish. Trout, one of our most valuable and
sought-after game fish, need very specific conditions to thrive, and
those conditions have been harder and harder to find. Currently roughly
2 percent of all freshwater fishes are either considered rare or at
risk. Habitat loss is part of the problem with only 19 percent of
streams and rivers in the lower 48 of high enough quality for wild or
scenic status.
[[Page S671]]
This bill, the Stream Habitat Improvement Program, is about more than
just preserving an ecosystem or building wildlife populations, this is
also about tourism and recreation. Fishing in this country is big
business. In Wisconsin alone there are almost 950,000 anglers, and
almost half a million more come from out of State to fish in Wisconsin.
Together these anglers spend $1 billion on fishing related expenses in
our State. Nationwide recreational fishing is related to $41 billion in
economic activity. An industry with this much impact around the country
deserves our consideration.
The bill introduced today would provide payments to farmers who
engage in conservation projects that improve stream health. The bill is
based on the Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program, but focused more
closely on streams, creeks, and rivers. Farmers who participate in the
program will make improvements on streams running through their
property. Improvements could include repairing shoreline, removing
barriers to fish passage, and planting trees to shade the water and
strengthen stream banks. Farmers who are willing to make the efforts to
improve spawning grounds and add cover for fish can do a lot to
rehabilitate this resource.
Not every river and stream needs to be returned to its natural state,
or be granted wild and scenic status. But this bill tries to take a
small step toward repairing a resource for the future. Fishing,
especially trout and fly fishing, are big business in this country, as
well as important environmental indicators. Our efforts to further
stream quality will have both economic benefits as well as natural
ones, and those are the kind of efforts that everyone in Congress can
get behind. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 218
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. STREAM HABITAT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Chapter 5 of subtitle D of title XII of
the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839bb et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 1240Q. STREAM HABITAT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
State technical committees established under section 1261,
shall establish within the Natural Resources Conservation
Service a program to be known as the stream habitat
improvement program (referred to in this section as the
`program').
``(b) Eligible Projects.--
``(1) In general.--Under the program, the Secretary shall
offer to enter into agreements under which the Secretary
shall make cost-share payments to landowners to carry out on
land owned by the landowners projects to--
``(A) protect streamside areas, including through the
installation of riparian fencing and improved stream
crossings;
``(B) repair in-stream habitat;
``(C) improve water flows and water quality, including
through channel restoration;
``(D) initiate watershed management and planning in areas
in which streams are in a degraded condition due to past
agricultural or forestry practices; and
``(E) undertake other types of stream habitat improvement
approved by the Secretary.
``(2) Priority projects.--The Secretary shall give priority
to any landowner applicant that carries out a project to--
``(A) remove a small dam or in-stream structure;
``(B) improve fish passage, including through culvert
repair and maintenance;
``(C) protect streamside areas;
``(D) improve water flows, including through irrigation
efficiency improvements; or
``(E) improve in-stream flow quality or timing or
temperature regimes.
``(3) Priority applicants.--To ensure that program projects
address the causes of stream habitat degradation, the
Secretary shall give priority to any landowner applicant that
demonstrates that upland improvements associated with the
stream habitat improvement (including erosion and nutrient
management) have been, or will be, carried out.
``(c) Cost-Share Payments.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and
(3), the Federal share of payments made under this section
shall be equal to 80 percent of the total cost incurred by
the landowner in carrying out a project described in
subsection (b), as determined and approved by the Secretary.
``(2) Nonprofit partnership.--The Secretary shall provide a
higher Federal share of payments than the share provided
under paragraph (1) to a landowner that carries out a project
in partnership with a nonprofit organization.
``(3) Priority projects.--The Secretary may provide a
higher Federal share of payments than the share provided
under paragraph (1) to a landowner that carries out a project
described in subsection (b)(2).''.
(b) Funding and Technical Assistance.--
(1) Funding.--Section 1241(a) of the Food Security Act of
1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(8) The stream habitat improvement program under section
1240Q, using, to the maximum extent practicable, $60,000,000
in each of fiscal years 2006 through 2008.''.
(2) Technical assistance.--Section 1241(b)(1) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841(b)(1) is amended by
striking ``paragraphs (1) through (7)'' and inserting
``paragraphs (1) through (8)''.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Baucus):
S. 219. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to protect the
retirement security of American workers by ensuring that pension assets
are adequately diversified and by providing workers with adequate
access to, and information about, their pension plans, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague,
Senator Baucus, the Ranking Member of the Finance Committee, to re-
introduce the National Employee Savings and Trust Equity Guarantee
Act--or the NESTEG bill as we call it in the Finance Committee. The
NESTEG bill would reform our pension and retirement savings laws in
several important ways. For example, NESTEG would require companies to
allow their employees to diversify out of company stock, a provision
that the Committee adopted in response to the events at Enron which saw
employees' retirement plans vanish almost over night. The NESTEG bill
also includes other important participant protections, including
enhanced disclosure requirements, new rules governing so-called
blackout periods, and faster vesting of employer contributions. In
addition, NESTEG expands the portability of retirement plan assets so
that workers can keep money saved for retirement, and simplifies
pension laws and regulation. The NESTEG bill also responds to the
uncertainty in the rules governing defined benefit pensions by
permanently adopting the yield curve as a replacement for the 30-year
Treasury rate.
Last year, the Finance Committee unanimously approved the NESTEG
bill. This year, I am looking forward to seeing it signed into law.
This bill first began in the wake of the outrageous events that went on
in the wake of the collapse of Enron and corporate scandals at other
companies. Over the past few years, the Finance Committee has worked
diligently to enact reforms in a number of areas of the law to make
sure that events like that don't happen again.
The important pension protections in the NESTEG bill are one
remaining area for reform. The headlines have died down, but workers'
pensions are still too vulnerable to company failures. Thus, a central
piece of this bill would allow employees to diversify their retirement
plans so that they are not overly concentrated in company stock.
Diversification is one of the hallmark principles of sound investment
strategy, and promoting diversification should be a hallmark of our
pension laws.
But the NESTEG bill is not just a bill that responds to Enron-like
situations. The NESTEG bill includes other important improvements to
401(k) and other defined contribution plans as well. The bill makes it
easier for employees to transfer amounts from one plan to another,
thereby making sure that plan assets remain saved for retirement. And
the bill includes provisions designed to make it easier and more cost
effective for small businesses to sponsor a retirement plan. Small
businesses are vital to our economy, and we need to encourage a level
playing field so that workers at small businesses throughout our
country have the same access to retirement plans as workers at Fortune
500 companies.
The NESTEG bill also would remove a major source of uncertainty
plaguing our pension system by enacting the yield curve as a permanent
replacement to the 30-year Treasury rate for pension funding. Workers
need reliable pension funding, and employers need a reliable basis on
which to calculate pension payments. The NESTEG bill
[[Page S672]]
also gives plan sponsors more flexibility to fund their plans well in
good times, and restricts the ability of companies with severely
underfunded plans to promise more benefits to work. The Administration
has recently come forward with additional pension funding reform
proposals, and I look forward to examining those reforms as the Finance
Committee considers legislation in this area this year.
Retirement security is a topic that is going to get a great deal of
attention this year. We know we need to increase long-term savings in
America, and we know that there are ways that we can improve our
private retirement system. The reforms in the NESTEG bill that I am
introducing today with Senator Baucus represent an important step
forward in improving Americans' retirement security. As we debate
retirement security issues this year, I look forward to working with my
colleagues to achieve the goal of ensuring that all Americans achieve a
secure retirement.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend
Senator Grassley, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, in
introducing the National Employee Savings and Trust Equity Guarantee
Act.
Senator Grassley and I have attempted put together a bipartisan bill
to improve the security of the pension plans that cover America's
workers. The Finance Committee approved similar legislation in the last
Congress. Some of the provisions in this bill that provide participant
protections were in a bill we introduced in the 107th Congress--a bill
designed to help us avoid another Enron retirement plan debacle.
We all remember Enron. Thousands of workers lost their jobs. Because
their 401(k) accounts were heavily invested in company stock, these
workers lost most of their retirement savings as well. While the story
of Enron's employees is no longer new, others companies unfortunately
have risen up, or fallen down, to take Enron's place.
This country is in the middle of a discussion about retirement
security. The administration is recommending that we introduce
investment risk into the Social Security system--a system that is the
sole source of retirement income for one-fifth of our senior citizens,
and the primary source for almost two-thirds of seniors. Before we
introduce risk into Social Security, the bedrock of our retirement
system, we need to take a hard look at how we can reduce risk to
participants in the private retirement system. That is what this bill
is about.
Pension legislation is challenging. Companies offer plans
voluntarily. If we value employer-sponsored retirement plans--and I
do--we need to be careful not to make them so burdensome that companies
will stop offering them. At the same time, workers have the right to
basic protections to make sure that the money that they are counting on
for retirement is really there when the time comes.
I believe that this bill strikes that balance. It phases out the
ability companies have to keep workers locked into company stock in
their retirement plans. But it does not limit those workers' ability to
invest in that stock if they decide that doing so is best for them.
To help make that decision, we give workers tools to make good
decisions, and really understand the consequences of their actions. We
require the issuance of benefit statements so workers know how much
their accounts are worth and how much company stock they already own.
And we provide a safe harbor to make it easier for employers to make
independent investment advice available if they want to.
The challenge inherent in legislating for a voluntary pension system
is particularly sensitive when the subject is defined benefit plan
funding. When we discuss and debate funding proposals, we need to
consider the health of PBGC, the participants who are counting on
defined benefit pensions and the employers who have been willing to
promise these benefits.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation insures defined benefit
plans covering forty-four million Americans. As recently as 2001, PBGC
had a projected surplus. Now PBGC has a projected deficit of $23
billion. And this deficit represents unfunded guaranteed benefits.
Sadly, many participants were promised benefits in excess of those
guaranteed by PBGC. These participants planned their retirement around
a benefit promise, only to have the rug pulled out from under them. We
must strengthen the funding of defined benefit pension plans so
promises made can be kept. This bill takes some important steps toward
this goal.
First, this bill provides a permanent replacement for the 30-year
Treasury rate used to calculate minimum funding requirements for
defined benefit plans. Congress passed a temporary substitute last
year, but our temporary fix expires at the end of this year. This bill
would extend the current corporate bond rate for an additional year,
and then begin phasing in the yield curve--a set of rates that
recognizes that you will get a different interest rate on a 5-year loan
than on a 15-year loan.
This bill increases the deductible limit on company contributions to
defined benefit pension plans. This is so critical. We must allow
companies to contribute more in good times, to build a cushion for bad
times.
Under this bill, plans of financially-distressed companies that are
less than 50 percent funded would not be allowed to continue promising
additional benefits until either the funding improves, or the company's
financial footing is more solid. This is a tough provision. But we have
to make sure that employees receive benefits that they have earned. We
have to do our best to make companies pay for promises they have made.
But when a company cannot pay for more promises, we must be willing to
step in and say ``No more promises.''
This bill has a number of other provisions that will make it easier
for a worker to move retirement plans from employer to employer, or
from an employer plan to an IRA. There are also provisions that make it
easier to administer retirement programs.
I look forward to continuing to work with the Chairman of the Finance
Committee, Senator Grassley, to see the National Employee Savings and
Trust Equity Guarantee Act through to enactment. I urge my colleagues
to join us in working toward a more secure retirement for millions of
Americans.
______
By Ms. STABENOW (for herself, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Boxer, Mr.
Lautenberg, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Dayton, and Mr. Corzine):
S. 222. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
stabilize the amount of the medicare part B premium; to the Committee
on Finance.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Keep the
Promise of Medicare Act'' of 2005, and am pleased to be joined by my
colleagues Senators Kennedy, Boxer, Lautenberg, Rockefeller, Dayton,
and Corzine.
Our Medicare beneficiaries were greeted in the New Year by the
largest premium increase in Medicare's history--17.5 percent. At the
same time, the Social Security COLA increased by only 2.7 percent.
What are the implications of such a discrepancy? More than 2 million
beneficiaries nationwide have lost their entire COLA to the Medicare
premium increase, and almost 13 million seniors and disabled Americans
will have over 50 percent of their COLA consumed by the Medicare
premium increase.
This dramatic increase could have been avoided--CMS Administrator
McClellan has acknowledged that provisions included in the 2003
Medicare law designed to privatize the program directly contributed to
the premium increase.
Therefore, my legislation will limit, retroactively, the 2005 Part B
premium increase to the same level as the Social Security COLA. The
result will be nearly a $10 monthly savings for our seniors--the Bush
Administration has given seniors a monthly $78.20 premium; under our
legislation the premium would be $68.40.
Older Americans have been struggling under the relentless increases
in the cost of their health care and prescription drugs. Rather than
alleviating the challenges they are facing, the 2005 premium increase
has made their situation even direr.
Adjusting the current premium is a first step, and one we must take
immediately. Additionally, we should use this year to revise an
outdated law that has led to record increase in Medicare premiums in
the last four years. The promise of Medicare must include
[[Page S673]]
protection from dramatic increases in the Part B premium.
I urge my colleagues to join me on this important piece of
legislation.
______
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry,
Mr. Levin, Mr. Dayton, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Stabenow, Ms. Mikulski,
Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr.
Sarbanes):
S. 223. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to
repeal any weakening of overtime protections and to avoid future loss
of overtime protections due to inflation; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am here to introduce legislation and to
talk about an issue that my colleagues have heard me speak about on
numerous occasions during the course of the past two years, frequently
at some length. That issue is overtime pay for American workers.
It is a subject I feel deeply about. It has become very clear to me
that Iowans feel very deeply about it, as well. Working families across
the country feel deeply about it.
I know that is true because people approach me and tell me what
overtime pay means to them and their families. I have become associated
with this fight here in Congress over protecting overtime pay, so when
people recognize me, they very often will approach me and tell me a
little bit about themselves and why they support my efforts on this
issue. Many of them even become emotional about it.
Why is that? Why do people feel so strongly? For some, it is a simple
matter of fairness and valuing work. They believe that receiving time-
and-a-half pay when they put in more than 40 hours of work in a week is
fair because if they are going to give up their premium time--hours
beyond a normal workweek--then their employer should provide them with
premium pay. It is simple fairness. Of course, they might also rely on
that premium pay as a substantial part of their income. That is a
benefit of valuing work fairly. They make more money.
Most people making overtime pay are not extremely affluent, so they
are probably spending a lot of that extra income, putting it right into
the local economy. That is therefore a further benefit to the economy.
Other people, to tell the truth, would rather not work a lot of
overtime hours. They believe a 40-hour workweek is a full workweek.
That is what the Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, did when we passed
it in 1938. It established the principle of a 40-hour workweek in law
by saying that employers need to pay extra when they work their
employees longer than that. The time-and-a-half rule tends to
discourage employers from requiring their employees to work longer than
40 hours, and many people value the law for that reason. They want to
keep their premium time for themselves. They want to spend their
premium time doing leisure activities or performing important family
duties.
In 1938, our government decided that the 40-hour workweek was
important to Americans. Look in any economic history book. It is
treated as a fundamental and valuable principle in our economy.
Overtime pay rewards work, and it reduces exploitation. It protects
``premium time'' for working men and women.
The 40-hour workweek says: Human beings are more than just the work
they do. It says, the progress of technology can allow us to enjoy a
good standard of living and quality of life without spending all of our
hours toiling and laboring.
The 40-hour workweek also creates jobs. Requiring time-and-a half pay
for overtime work encourages employers to hire more workers, rather
than requiring additional hours of work from existing employees.
Franklin Roosevelt cited this as a rationale when he signed the FLSA
into law.
In 1933, probably for all the reasons I have just mentioned, the
United States Senate voted 53 to 30 to set a cap for hours in a
workweek. The number of hours was 30. The Senate voted to cap the
workweek in the United States at 30 hours. Those were extremely
difficult times economically, but the Senate of 70 years ago
nonetheless placed a greater value on quality time spent off the job
than they did increasing productivity with longer workweeks.
The Bush rules are deeply flawed. They make millions of modest-income
and moderate-income American workers vulnerable to losing their
eligibility for overtime pay, broadening the categories of workers that
are ineligible for overtime protections--often in response to specific
requests from industries.
If overtime is free to the employer, it is going to be overused. A
study done by the Center for Women and Work at Rutgers University
showed that only 20 percent of the workers eligible for overtime work
more than 40 hours a week, but 44 percent of workers who are exempt
from overtime pay work overtime.
Several months ago, three former career DoL officials released a
report after having done an in-depth review of these rule changes.
Their analysis should be read by all to whom the issue of overtime is
important.
These were not just any three former DoL officials. These were the
top three people who administered these regulations over the course of
the last two decades. They speak with enormous credibility on this
issue.
These career employees have said that ``in every instance where DoL
has made substantive changes to the existing rules, it has weakened the
criteria for overtime exemptions and thereby expanded the reach and
scope of the exemptions.'' This comes from people who were elevated to
their high positions within DoL during the Reagan administration. The
fact that they say these new rules are bad for the American worker in
all ways but one ought to tell us something.
All of my colleagues are well aware that I led fights on the Senate
floor during the last Congress to block or repeal the Department of
Labor's FLSA overtime rule changes. Despite the fact that Congress
voted 6 times during that period to protect workers' overtime by
blocking the new rules, the administration insisted on ignoring the
will of Congress. The new rules went into effect on August 23 of last
year.
The bill I am introducing today would simply allow any workers who
were entitled to overtime before the new rules took effect last August
to retain their overtime rights. It makes ineffective those portions of
the new rules that allow employers to take overtime eligibility away
from workers who were eligible before the new rules took effect.
Secondly, my bill would also increase the minimum salary threshold.
The minimum salary threshold that helps define overtime eligibility had
not been raised since 1975 before the Bush administration raised it to
$23,660. The administration did not raise it high enough, and millions
of workers who should be covered are not covered due to this
inadequacy. This bill will increase the number of workers covered by
overtime protections by raising the minimum salary threshold to
$30,712--to correspond with the increase in workers' wages since 1975.
The bill also contains language that requires the salary threshold be
adjusted annually to reflect and keep pace with increases in inflation.
American workers deserve an iron-clad guarantee that their overtime
rights are safe. That is what the bipartisan bill I am introducing
today accomplishes. It repeals any provisions of the new rules that
took effect last August that weaken overtime protections, and it
indexes the minimum salary threshold annually to avoid future loss of
overtime protections due to inflation. I thank the 13 of my colleagues
who have agreed to cosponsor this for their support, and I look forward
to adding more.
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. 223
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 ``Overtime Rights Protection
Act''.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938.
Section 13 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29
U.S.C. 213) is amended by adding at the end the following:
[[Page S674]]
``(k)(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subchapter II of
chapter 5 and chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code
(commonly referred to as the Administrative Procedures Act)
or any other provision of law, any portion of the final rule
promulgated on April 23, 2004, revising part 541 of title 29,
Code of Federal Regulations, that exempts from the overtime
pay provision of section 7 of this Act any employee who would
not otherwise be exempt if the regulations in effect on March
31, 2003 remained in effect, shall have no force or effect
and that portion of such regulations (as in effect on March
31, 2003) that would prevent such employee from being exempt
shall be reinstated.
``(2) The Secretary shall adjust the minimum salary level
for exemption under section 13(a)(1) in the following manner:
``(A) Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of
this subsection, the Secretary shall increase the minimum
salary level for exemption under subsection (a)(1) for
executive, administrative, and managerial occupations from
the level of $155 per week in 1975 to $591 per week (an
amount equal to the increase in the Employment Cost Index
(published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics) for executive,
administrative, and managerial occupations between 1975 and
2005).
``(B) Not later than December 31 of the calendar year
following the increase required in subparagraph (A), and each
December 31 thereafter, the Secretary shall increase the
minimum salary level for exemption under subsection (a)(1) by
an amount equal to the increase in the Employment Cost Index
for executive, administrative, and managerial occupations for
the year involved.''.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Harkin for introducing
the Overtime Rights Protection Act to restore overtime protections for
the more than 6 million Americans denied overtime pay and denied the
guarantee of a 40-hour work week by the Republican anti-overtime
regulation adopted in 2004. The bill will also provide overtime
protections for additional deserving workers.
In the last Congress, the Senate voted four times to block the
Administration's overtime rule, and the House voted twice to block it.
Yet, the Republican leadership refused to accept the will of Congress
and the will of the American people. Instead, it blocked the enactment
of this legislation and continued the unfair assault on America's
workers and their right to overtime pay.
In today's economy, workers are concerned about losing their jobs,
their pay, their health benefits, and their retirement benefits. Now
more than six million employees also have to worry about losing higher
pay they've always earned for working overtime.
These men and women are nurses. They are school teachers. They are
long-term care workers. They are assistants in mental health
facilities. They are countless men and women in many other fields.
Make no mistake--overtime cuts are pay cuts. When workers lose their
overtime pay, they still work longer hours. But they get no extra pay
for doing so, even though they've had the right to time-and-a-half pay
for overtime work ever since the 1930's.
Clearly, we need a policy to create more jobs, not eliminate jobs. By
taking away workers' right to overtime, the Administration's rule
undermines job creation, since it allows businesses to require
employees to work longer hours for no extra pay, rather than hire new
workers to do the extra work.
Denying overtime pay is a thinly veiled scheme to reduce workers' pay
and raise employers' profits. In this troubled economy, it makes no
sense to ask any workers anywhere in America to give up their overtime
pay.
Instead of making hard-working men and women work longer hours for
less pay, businesses should create new jobs by hiring more employees to
do the work.
We know that employees across America are already struggling hard to
balance their family needs and their work responsibilities. Requiring
them to work longer hours for less pay will impose an even greater
burden in this daily struggle.
According to the Families and Work Institute, two of the most
important things that children would most like to change about their
parents are that they wish their parents were less stressed out by
their work, and they wish they could spend more time with their
parents.
The Government Accountability Office says that employees without
overtime protection are twice as likely to work overtime as employees
covered by the protection. In other words, businesses don't hesitate to
demand longer hours, as long as they don't have to pay higher wages for
the extra work.
Protecting the 40-hour work week is vital to protecting the work-
family balance for millions of Americans in communities in all parts of
the nation. The last thing Congress should be doing is to allow the new
anti-overtime rule to make the balance worse for workers than it
already is.
Under the overtime law, low-income workers are supposed to be
automatically included. But today, millions who should be included are
left out, since wages have increased, but the maximum earnings level
for automatic coverage has remained the same for 30 years. The Bush
Administration raised it to $23,660 in their new rule, but this level
is still too low. The Harkin bill will cover more workers by raising
the threshold to $30,712, and index it to keep pace with wage growth.
This change will bring it to the level it would be if we'd made annual
adjustments for wage inflation over the last 30 years.
Congress cannot look the other way while more and more Americans lose
their jobs, their livelihoods, their homes, and their dignity. Denying
overtime pay rubs salt in the wounds of this troubled economy. Enacting
the Overtime Rights Protection Act will end this injustice, and I urge
my colleagues to support it.
____________________