[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 105 (Thursday, July 28, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9286-S9307]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. AKAKA:
S. 1521. A bill to provide for teacher acculturation, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am introducing the Teacher Acculturation
Act of 2005 as a means to address an issue that impedes effective
learning in our Nation's classrooms, and that is cultural incongruence.
Such a lack of congruence exists in a wide range of situations, from
rural and underserved communities in remote areas to well-populated
urban centers, from my State of Hawaii to areas on the Eastern
seaboard. The dynamic I am describing exists along lines of race and
ethnicity, socioeconomic strata, age, and many other vectors, which can
muddy the stuff of learning that needs to be transmitted between
students aiming to learn and teachers seeking to teach.
[[Page S9287]]
As many of my colleagues and I have said many times, our children are
our future. Furthermore, our great Nation is dependent on the success
of our educational system and what it is delivering to our children. An
essential part of our educational system is a highly qualified teacher
with knowledge of the subject area, and the ability to teach that
subject to students. This is the most important factor in the academic
success of the student. My bill will address one attribute of that
success: the ability of the teacher to present the lesson in a way that
students are ready to learn it.
I started my professional life as a teacher, so improvement of the
field of education is never far from my thoughts. Even after all of my
teacher training, I remember walking into a classroom and thinking,
``What do I do now?'' and, ``Will I be able to connect with my
students?'' I have never forgotten those thoughts. Through my bill, I
hope to work to help teachers answer these and similar questions,
particularly for those teachers who are placed in States that are new
to them, or in parts of their home States with which they have little
or no familiarity. In my State of Hawaii, according to an article
published Monday in the Honolulu Advertiser, Hawaii's 258 public
schools need 1,400 to 1,600 new teachers every year to replace those
who retire or leave the system, particularly in the areas of special
education, speech pathology, autism, and hearing impairment. However,
only about 500 Hawaii teachers are graduating and earning their
licenses every year from both public and private colleges, and many of
them are being drawn away from the State to schools on the mainland.
Recruiting trips by the Hawaii Department of Education are seeking
hires in cities such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San
Francisco. I would like to help to ensure the success of these and
other teachers in similar situations across the country, to help smooth
their adjustment to their new homes, and thus, make a fluid transition
to their new classrooms.
The Teacher Acculturation Act seeks to address cultural incongruence
between the teacher and the student population in the classroom. To be
successful, the teacher must be prepared to teach in a way that
students are ready to learn. And with a increasingly diverse student
population, that becomes harder and harder as time goes by. To achieve
these ends, the bill proposes programs in three parts.
The first two parts recognize the success of ongoing and sustained
professional development to affect positive change in teaching
pedagogy. The bill authorizes demonstration programs that aim to assist
teachers in learning, developing, and implementing pedagogies that help
all students learn. I have modeled the programs on the Lesson Study
theory of change, which is a model that uses a cohort of professionals
for lesson development, presentation of the developed lesson by a
member of the cohort to a class, observation of the presentation by
other members of the cohort, and post-presentation analysis and
reflection by the entire cohort, along with coaches, mentors, and
supervising practitioners. A group of teachers working together to
improve their pedagogy has been shown to be very effective, and this
model is becoming more popular at every level in teacher education and
professional development, from classroom work in colleges of education,
to cohort work by candidates for National Board Certification--the
highest performance achievement available to a teacher in the United
States.
The first demonstration program would take place during the time the
prospective teacher is in a college or school of education, and
introduces a multicultural awareness component into the pre-service
teaching activities. In this program, prospective teachers would work
with members of the community, trained academics, and practicing
teachers to learn about cultural characteristics of the student
population, to develop pedagogies and curriculum to fit those cultures,
and to study how to deliver the new lessons in a culturally relevant
style. Prospective teachers would then deliver these lessons to the
students in a real classroom setting while student teaching. Post-
teaching analysis, reflection, and discussion would then allow the
student teacher to analyze and reflect upon the performance.
The second demonstration program is structured similarly to the first
program, but conducts a professional development activity during the
time the teacher is new to the profession--generally the first three
years--recognizing that many teachers develop teaching styles in these
initial years that they may use for the duration of their teaching
careers. Through this program, a cohort of teachers would undertake a
year-long program, which includes two summers, under the direction of a
coach trained in multicultural education. Participating teachers would
already be placed in teaching positions and have a defined learning
community to work with. If done right, such a program has the potential
to involve the whole school community and, eventually, contribute to
whole school change.
These two programs taken together have the potential to develop a
cadre of teachers adept at teaching in ways that are culturally-
relevant, ways that address the needs of the students, and ways in
which the students are ready to learn. I truly feel that such programs
working with new and prospective teachers can make a difference in
addressing the current achievement gap, particularly impacting the
groups most at risk of being on the losing end of the achievement gap.
The third section of the Teacher Acculturation Act of 2005 would set
up Centers of Excellence in Multicultural Education. These centers
would support the professional development activities from the first
two parts of the bill by providing trained mentors, coaches, and
academics, as well as undertaking research into the areas of
multicultural education. The centers would also develop activities for
use by schools and districts to provide ongoing professional
development opportunities to all faculty or teachers.
We must never forget that a solid education is the cornerstone of our
future. And a highly qualified teacher is needed to provide that
education. The teacher not only needs to be knowledgeable about the
subject being taught, but needs to know how to teach the subject to the
students. This bill would help address the question of how. It seeks to
prepare the teacher to deal with groups of students with different
learning styles, as well as to identify the needs of divergent groups
of students and how to vary teaching to support the learning of these
students. My bill seeks to improve learning among those groups who are
underserved today. Although my bill alone would not eliminate the
achievement gap, it seeks to provide a good start.
This bill is supported by leading experts and organizations in the
field of multicultural education, including Ms. Joyce Harris, Executive
director of the National Academy for Multicultural Education, Dr. James
Banks of the Center for Multicultural Education at the University of
Washington, and Dr. Randy Hitz, Dean of the College of Education at the
University of Hawaii. I ask unanimous consent that their letters of
support be printed in the Record. I ask unanimous consent that the text
of the bill be printed in the Record.
I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important piece of
legislation.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Association for
Multicultural Education,
Washington, DC, June 28, 2005.
Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Akaka: It is my understanding that you will
soon present legislation dealing with teacher acculturation.
On behalf of the National Association for Multicultural
Education (NAME), I am extending our support for you and the
legislation. What you are proposing is not only admirable but
very necessary. Today's school populations are more diverse
than they've ever been, and this diversity will only
increase. Further, while the student body is becoming
ethnically and racially more diverse, the teaching force is
not.
Some will argue that the 3 R's are all teachers need to
focus on, and students will be all right; but others of us
know that this is not the case for a growing number of
today's youth. What was fine decades ago will not necessarily
work in today's schools.
NAME thanks you for your foresight and courage. I'm sure
that you know you may have a Herculean task before you, but
please keep the faith. This is so important to make
[[Page S9288]]
sure that ALL of our children succeed. With the No Child Left
Behind Act and the cuts in some educational programs (for
example, The Dropout Prevention Program--who is more than
likely to drop out? The lower SES students and students of
color!), is it especially important that we have people of
your stature working to ensure that all of our children
receive an equitable education.
I have seen your website. I've read about your many
accomplishments on behalf of your Hawaiian constituency and
for the American people at large. Again, please know that
NAME stands behind you. Please contact me if there is
anything that the organization or I may do for you as you go
forward with. this legislation.
Sincerely,
Joyce E. Harris,
Executive Director.
____
University of Hawai`i
at Manoa,
Honolulu, HI, June 23, 2005
Sen. Daniel Akaka,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Akaka: I am writing to support the Teacher
Acculturation bill you are introducing in the Senate. I have
carefully reviewed the bill with faculty in the University of
Hawai`i, college of Education, and we think it has great
potential to improve education throughout the United States.
The relationship between the teacher and the student is the
key to success in education. The Teacher Acculturation bill
seeks to improve student achievement by ameliorating the
cultural mismatch between teachers and the students they
teach, thus improving the teacher's ability to address
educational needs of individual students.
The University of Hawai`i, College of Education is heavily
involved in indigenous education multicultural initiatives,
and other efforts to ensure that teachers are well prepared
to work with diverse populations of students. As one of the
nation's most diverse states, Hawai`i has significant
challenges in bridging cultural gaps between teachers and
students. But, nearly every school in every state in the
nation faces the challenge of bridging cultural differences
between teachers and students. Your bill will create models
for better preparing teachers to understand and address the
learning needs of the diverse student populations they serve,
thus improving their academic achievement.
Thank you for your leadership in preparing this innovative
and important bill, and thank you for the opportunity to
comment on the bill.
Sincerely,
Randy Hitz,
Dean.
____
S. 1521
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TEACHER ACCULTURATION.
Title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1021 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``PART C--TEACHER ACCULTURATION
``SEC. 231. SHORT TITLE.
``This part may be cited as the `Teacher Acculturation Act
of 2005'.
``SEC. 232. FINDINGS.
``Congress makes the following findings:
``(1) Every person (child, adolescent, or adult) has her or
his own cluster of learning modalities.
``(2) These individual learning modalities are the result
of many factors, including the person's cultural heritage,
language, and socioeconomic background.
``(3) Research has shown that learning occurs best within a
learning environment that closely matches a person's
individual learning modalities.
``(4) There is a strong correlation between--
``(A) the lack of academic achievement of a student; and
``(B) a lack of congruence between--
``(i) the learning modalities of the student; and
``(ii) the teaching pedagogy of the teacher.
``(5) One of the factors that significantly impacts
learning modalities is a student's culture.
``(6) A congruence between the cultural norms embedded in
the teaching environment and the culture of a student has
been shown to significantly improve the academic achievement
of the student.
``(7) The teacher has the most control in setting the
cultural environment of the classroom.
``SEC. 233. PURPOSE.
``It is the purpose of this part to develop a core group of
teachers who are able to provide instruction in a way that is
culturally congruent with the learning modalities of the
students they are teaching, in order to--
``(1) ameliorate the lack of cultural congruence between
teachers and the students they teach; and
``(2) improve student achievement.
``SEC. 234. DEFINITIONS.
``In this part:
``(1) Induction phase.--The term `induction phase' means
the period when a teacher is new to the profession, the
classroom, or a school.
``(2) In-service phase.--The term `in-service phase' means
the period during and throughout the professional life of a
teacher.
``(3) Practicum phase.--The term `practicum phase' means
the period beginning with the last year of a teacher
preparation program at an institution of higher education
when the student is spending time in a prekindergarten
through grade 12 classroom, and culminating at the end of the
student teaching portion of the student's teacher preparation
program.
``(4) Supervising academic.--The term `supervising
academic' means a member of the faculty of an institution of
higher education who--
``(A) is designated to oversee, coordinate, and participate
in the field placement or student teaching experience of a
preservice teacher; and
``(B) works in conjunction with a supervising practitioner.
``(5) Supervising practitioner.--The term `supervising
practitioner' means a prekindergarten through grade 12
teacher in a school who--
``(A) is designated to coach, observe, and evaluate a
preservice teacher at the school during the preservice
teacher's field placement or student teaching experience in
the classroom; and
``(B) works in conjunction with the supervising academic.
``SEC. 235. MEASURE OF CULTURAL MISMATCH.
``The Secretary, in consultation with relevant educational
and cultural governmental and nongovernmental entities and
not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the
Teacher Acculturation Act of 2005, shall develop a measure of
cultural mismatch for purposes of--
``(1) the demonstration program under section 236; and
``(2) the composition of partnerships described in sections
242 and 263.
``SEC. 236. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out
a demonstration program to investigate, develop, and test
methods to attempt to ameliorate the cultural mismatch
between teachers and the students they teach.
``(b) Components.--The demonstration program shall consist
of--
``(1) professional development activities occurring during
3 different phases of a teacher's professional life,
including the practicum phase, induction phase, and in-
service phase; and
``(2) the development of centers of excellence in
multicultural education.
``Subpart 1--Induction Phase Component
``SEC. 241. GRANTS AUTHORIZED.
``In carrying out the demonstration program under this
part, the Secretary is authorized to award grants to eligible
partnerships to enable the eligible partnerships to carry out
the induction phase component of the teacher preparation
assisted under this subpart.
``SEC. 242. ELIGIBLE PARTNERSHIPS.
``In this subpart, the term `eligible partnership' means a
partnership consisting of--
``(1) a local educational agency, with a high percentage of
students who have a cultural mismatch with the majority of
the teaching staff at the schools served by the local
educational agency, collaborating with--
``(A) a cohort of induction phase teachers from the local
educational agency; and
``(B) members of a school community who are--
``(i) from the cultural background of the students to be
taught by the teachers assisted under the grant; and
``(ii) knowledgeable about the cultural norms of the
community; and
``(2) an institution of higher education or organization
with expertise in multicultural education, collaborating with
a mentor, coach, or facilitator who will work with the cohort
described in paragraph (1)(A).
``SEC. 243. INDUCTION PHASE COMPONENT.
``An eligible partnership that receives a grant under this
subpart shall use the grant funds to carry an induction phase
component of the demonstration program that may include the
following:
``(1) A summer workshop held during the summer prior to a
program year (as described in paragraph (2)), in which
participant teachers study the basics of the following:
``(A) Multicultural education.
``(B) The cultural norms of the students served by the
local educational agency where the participant teachers will
be teaching.
``(C) The history of the municipality and the cultural
groups where the participant teachers will be teaching.
``(2) A program year during the school year designed to
include--
``(A) a series of classroom-based teaching activities and
observations, including pre- and post-activity discussion
under the coaching of a person experienced in leading such a
program and trained in the principles of multicultural
education;
``(B) individual one-on-one mentoring by a mentor, coach,
or facilitator participating in the eligible partnership;
``(C) classroom visits including possible videotaping of
the lessons; and
``(D) group meetings to reflect on--
``(i) a classroom visit described in subparagraph (C); or
``(ii) the progress of the program.
``(3) A workshop or institute during the summer immediately
after a program year (as described in paragraph (2)) that may
include the following:
``(A) Analysis of lessons developed and taught during the
program year.
``(B) Practice lessons presented to the cohort described in
section 242(1)(A).
[[Page S9289]]
``(C) Analysis of participant teacher growth over the
duration of the program.
``(D) Development of a reflective portfolio, for each
member of the cohort described in section 242(1)(A), of the
member's experience in the program.
``SEC. 244. USE OF FUNDS.
``Grant funds provided under this subpart may be used for--
``(1) stipends and release time for participant teachers;
``(2) compensation for mentors, coaches, facilitators, or
substitutes;
``(3) reimbursement for normal expenses incurred by the
eligible partnership during the grant period; and
``(4) equipment, supplies, and travel necessary for the
program.
``SEC. 245. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may
be necessary to carry out this subpart for fiscal year 2006
and each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years.
``Subpart 2--Practicum Phase Component
``SEC. 251. GRANTS AUTHORIZED.
``In carrying out the demonstration program under this
part, the Secretary is authorized to award grants to eligible
partnerships to enable the eligible partnerships to carry out
the practicum phase component of the teacher preparation
assisted under this subpart.
``SEC. 252. ELIGIBLE PARTNERSHIPS.
``In this subpart, the term `eligible partnership' means a
partnership consisting of--
``(1) a teacher preparation program approved by a State
educational agency and accredited by the National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education, collaborating with--
``(A) a cohort of practicum phase students; and
``(B) a faculty member who serves as a supervising
practitioner;
``(2) a local educational agency--
``(A) serving a student population whose cultural norms--
``(i) are different from the cultural norms of the
participating teacher preparation program students; and
``(ii) are similar to the cultural norms of the students or
community served by a local educational agency where the
participating teacher preparation program students will be
looking for employment; and
``(B) collaborating with a group of supervising
practitioners; and
``(3) a support committee for the practicum program, that
provides cultural norms to the practicum participants, which
may include--
``(A) a center of excellence described in subpart 3;
``(B) faculty or staff of a school, local educational
agency, or State educational agency;
``(C) parents or family members of a student taught by the
student teachers assisted under the grant;
``(D) community stakeholders; or
``(E) organizations with expertise in multicultural
education.
``SEC. 253. PRACTICUM PHASE COMPONENT.
``An eligible partnership that receives a grant under this
subpart shall use the grant funds to carry out a practicum
phase component of the demonstration program that may include
the following:
``(1) A course for the practicum students covering
multicultural education, including specifics pertaining to
the cultural norms of the students served by the local
educational agency where the students will be participating
in the practicum.
``(2) A program running contemporaneous to the practicum
that includes--
``(A) a program under the coaching of a supervising
academic where the practicum students interact with each
other to discuss their experiences;
``(B) individual one-on-one coaching by a supervising
academic;
``(C) classroom visits to the locations of other student
teachers in the cohort described in section 252(1)(A),
including possible videotaping of the lessons; and
``(D) periodic cohort meetings during the practicum to
reflect on the progress of the program.
``(3) A followup program at the conclusion of the practicum
carried out by the teacher preparation program participating
in the eligible partnership.
``SEC. 254. USE OF FUNDS.
``Grant funds provided under this subpart may be used for--
``(1) compensation for a supervising academic or a
supervising practitioner;
``(2) scholarships for participants; and
``(3) equipment, supplies, travel, and other expenses
appropriate to the program.
``SEC. 255. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may
be necessary to carry out this subpart for fiscal year 2006
and each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years.
``Subpart 3--Centers of Excellence in Multicultural Education
``SEC. 261. CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE AUTHORIZED.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to establish
not more than 10 centers to support excellence in
multicultural education.
``(b) Duties.--Such centers shall--
``(1) support participants during the practicum phases and
induction phases of their teacher preparation;
``(2) develop and implement an in-service phase program;
``(3) develop or expand the theory and practice of
multicultural education; and
``(4) collect appropriate data to allow for the evaluation
of the activities implemented under this part.
``SEC. 262. LOCATION OF CENTERS.
``The centers shall--
``(1) be located within universities, colleges or schools
with teacher education programs approved by the appropriate
State educational agency and accredited by the National
Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education;
``(2) be located in geographically diverse areas of the
United States; and
``(3) be distributed among institutions of higher education
serving various cultural communities.
``SEC. 263. PARTNERSHIPS.
``The centers may form partnerships, for the purpose of
carrying out the duties described in section 261(b), with--
``(1) a college or school of teacher education;
``(2) at least 1 local educational agency with a high
degree of cultural mismatch between the local educational
agency's teachers and the students they teach;
``(3) an academic department, center, or program that
focuses on the study of cultural mismatches, such as cultural
mismatches related to gender, race, national origin, or other
similar areas; or
``(4) such additional entities as the centers determine
appropriate.
``SEC. 264. USE OF FUNDS.
``Funds made available under this subpart may be used for
the following:
``(1) Financial support for researchers, such as doctoral
and post-doctoral fellowships.
``(2) In-service multicultural education workshops for
teachers.
``(3) Supporting the programs assisted under subpart 1 or
2.
``(4) Supporting research into best practices in
multicultural education, performing evaluation of the best
practices, and carrying out a dissemination program for the
best practices that improve student academic achievement.
``(5) Evaluation of--
``(A) the activities of the centers; and
``(B) the impact of the activities of the centers on
teaching practices and student achievement.
``SEC. 265. ANNUAL MEETING OF THE CENTERS.
``The Secretary is authorized to convene an annual meeting
of all centers assisted under this subpart for the purpose of
enabling the centers to share information, research, and best
practices.
``SEC. 266. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may
be necessary to carry out this subpart for fiscal year 2006
and each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years.
``Subpart 4--General Provisions
``SEC. 271. ANNUAL REPORTS.
(a) Report.--Each eligible partnership that receives a
grant, and each center that receives assistance, under this
part shall prepare and submit to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate, and the
Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of
Representatives, a report on the activities of the eligible
partnership or center, respectively, that are supported under
this part.
(b) Date.--The report described in subsection (a) shall be
submitted 2 years after the date of enactment of the Teacher
Acculturation Act of 2005, and annually thereafter for the
duration of the grant or assistance, as the case may be.''.
______
By Mr. CHAMBLISS (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Burr, and Ms.
Murkowski):
S. 1522. A bill to recognize the heritage of hunting and provide
opportunities for continued hunting on Federal public land; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, today I introduce the Hunting Heritage
Protection Act of 2005. With the introduction of this important
legislation, we are able to acknowledge our Nation's rich heritage of
hunting. The purpose of this bill is to pass that legacy on to future
generations by protecting and preserving the rights of our Nation's
sportsmen and women.
In 2001, over 13 million Americans contributed over $20.6 billion to
the U.S. economy while hunting--a true recreational activity. Many
believe that in order to hunt you must own land, but that is not true.
I believe that hunting should be available as a recreational activity
for everyone.
I have been an avid outdoor sportsman since my adulthood. I am also
an avid conservationist, like most other hunters. Recreational hunting
provides many opportunities to spend valuable time with children, just
as I do with my son. He has been hunting since he was a young boy where
he discovered and learned to appreciate one of the Earth's greatest
treasures, nature.
Over the years, hunters have contributed billions of dollars to
wildlife conservation, by purchasing licenses, permits, and stamps, as
well as paying excise taxes on goods used by hunters.
[[Page S9290]]
Since the time of President Teddy Roosevelt, father of the conservation
movement, sportsmen and women have been and will continue to be some of
the greatest supporters of sound wildlife management and conservation
practices in the U.S.
Hunters need to be recognized for the vital role they play in
conservation in this country. The Hunting Heritage Protection Act will
do just that. This bill formalizes a policy by which the Federal
Government will support, promote, and enhance recreational hunting
opportunities, as permitted under State and Federal law. Further, the
bill mandates that Federal public land and water are to be open to
access and use for recreational hunting where and when appropriate. I
should clarify and stress that this bill does not suggest that we open
all national parks to hunting. As I mentioned, the goal is simple--I
want recreational hunting on our public land to be available to the
citizens of this country where and when appropriate.
It is crucial that the tradition of hunting is protected and that the
valuable contributions that hunters have made to conservation in this
country are recognized. And, we want to ensure that Federal land
management decisions and their actions result in a ``no net loss of
hunting opportunities'' on our public lands. This bill allows Congress
to address this issue and to honor our Nation's sportsmen and women.
______
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 1523. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make
permanent increased expensing for small businesses; to the Committee on
Finance.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation on
behalf of the Nation's millions of small businesses and self-employed
individuals. I am pleased to join with my colleague in the House,
Congressman Wally Herger, in reforming the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to permanently extend the amount of new investment a business can
expense.
This bill is a critical incentive for the small business sector of
our economy to invest in new technology, expand their operations, and
most important, create jobs.
We can never minimize the role that small businesses play in our
economy. They represent 99 percent of all employers, employ 51 percent
of the private-sector workforce, provide nearly 75 percent of the net
new jobs, contribute 51 percent of the private-sector output, and
represent 96 percent of all exporters of goods. In short, size is the
only ``small'' aspect of small business.
The bill I introduce today recognizes the vitality and uniquely
American innovation of the small business owners and entrepreneurs
throughout our country. It will make permanent the provisions in
Section 179 of the Internal Revenue Code, which enables small
businesses to write off the cost of new equipment, rather than
depreciate it over a period of years.
As the chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, I am responding today to the repeated requests from
small businesses in my State of Maine and from across the Nation for
greater expensing of new equipment.
By making permanent the current expensing limit of $100,000 and
indexing these amounts for inflation, this bill will achieve two
important objectives.
First, qualifying businesses will be able to write off more equipment
purchases today, instead of waiting 5, 6, 7 or more years to recover
their costs through depreciation.
That represents substantial savings both in dollars and in the time
small businesses would otherwise be forced to spend complying with
complex depreciation rules. Moreover, new equipment contributes to
continued productivity growth in the business community, which Federal
Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has repeatedly stressed is essential to
long-term economic growth and job creation.
Second, more businesses will qualify for this benefit because the
phase-out limit will be made permanent at $400,000 in new equipment
purchases. This will occur at the same time small business capital
investment pumps more money into the many sectors of the economy. My
bill is a win-win for small business and the economy as a whole.
Small businesses are always at the forefront of our national economic
recoveries and our national economic booms. This bill strengthens their
ability to lead the way. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting
this important legislation as we work with the President to enact this
bill into law.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1523
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 ``Small Business Expensing
Permanency Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. INCREASED EXPENSING FOR SMALL BUSINESS MADE
PERMANENT.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 179(b) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to dollar limitation)
is amended by striking ``$25,000 ($100,000 in the case of
taxable years beginning after 2002 and before 2008)'' and
inserting ``$100,000''.
(b) Increase in Qualifying Investment at Which Phaseout
Begins.--Paragraph (2) of section 179(b) of such Code
(relating to reduction in limitation) is amended by striking
``$200,000 ($400,000 in the case of taxable years beginning
after 2002 and before 2008)'' and inserting ``$400,000''.
(c) Inflation Adjustments.--Section 179(b)(5)(A) of such
Code (relating to inflation adjustments) is amended by
striking ``and before 2008''.
(d) Revocation of Election.--Section 179(c)(2) of such Code
(relating to election irrevocable) is amended by striking
``and before 2008''.
(e) Off-the-shelf Computer Software.--Section
179(d)(1)(A)(ii) of such Code (relating to section 179
property) is amended by striking ``and before 2008''.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Durbin, Mr.
Rockefeller, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Corzine, Mr.
Salazar, Mr. Obama, and Ms. Mikulski):
S. 1525. A bill to ensure that commercial insurers cannot engage in
price fixing, bid rigging, or market allocations to the detriment of
competition and consumers; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Medical
Malpractice Insurance Antitrust Act of 2005.'' In the ongoing debate
about health care costs, this legislation is a targeted and responsible
move toward fixing one significant part of the system that is broken
the skyrocketing insurance premiums for medical malpractice.
For too long, doctors and hospitals have endured dramatic increases
in the cost of their malpractice insurance. I doubt there is a single
Senator who has not heard repeatedly from beleaguered physicians back
home. Rising insurance rates are reportedly forcing some doctors to
abandon their practices.
Some of my colleagues in the other body seem content to echo the
refrains of the insurance industry and heap blame for the problem of
rising insurance premiums rates on trial lawyers and the victims of
medical malpractice themselves. I have opposed arbitrary caps on
damages because they will inflict additional harm on the most
vulnerable victims of medical malpractice.
Many of us have questioned the insurance industry's claim that
lawsuits are causing the rise in premium costs since doctors in States
that have imposed damages caps have not seen a reduction in their
medical malpractice insurance premiums.
A newly released report provides shows that our questions were well-
founded. This report provides real evidence rather than anecdotal
stories routinely trotted out by the insurance industry advocates. This
study was prepared by a former State Insurance Commissioner and uses
the insurance industry's own numbers to debunk the myths being advanced
by the insurance industry.
The study entitled, ``Falling Claims and Rising Premiums in the
Medical Malpractice Insurance Industry,'' suggests that malpractice
insurers have been overcharging, even gouging, physicians
unconscionably. I expect a number of Senators will be surprised to
learn that the malpractice claims payments actually went down, in real
[[Page S9291]]
terms, over the past five years. In addition, even the insurers' own
projections of future losses are declining. Despite these downward
trends, year in and year out, these insurers are burdening doctors with
increased premium costs and shifting the blame for their increases on
to lawyers and victims.
In the past five years, premiums have more than doubled even though
claims payments have been stable. In 2004, malpractice insurers' total
premiums were three times higher than their payouts. During the years
2000 to 2004, net premiums increased by 120 percent, while net claims
payments increased by less than 6 percent.
I urge Senators to read this report. It is based entirely on data
from annual statements filed under oath with State insurance
departments by the Nation's 15 largest malpractice insurers. The
statements contain each insurer's estimate of how much it will pay out
in malpractice claims, as well as data showing how much it actually
paid out in claims and took in premiums. Claims and projected losses
are down. It is only premiums that are rising, not claims.
What this boils down to is an insurance industry problem, not a
problem with the legal system. No wonder that the State attorneys
general of Connecticut and Missouri have reacted to the study by
attacking industry practices and calling for an aggressive regulatory
response.
As this study makes clear, high malpractice insurance premiums are
not the result of malpractice lawsuit verdicts. They are the result of
investment decisions by the insurance companies and of business models
geared toward ever-increasing profits. I hope that this study once and
for all shines light on the real culprit in rising malpractice
insurance rates and informs the Senate with solid evidence of the best
way to assist the good doctors who commit their professional lives to
caring for others. I ask unanimous consent that the executive summary
of the study be printed in the Record.
To be sure, different States have different experiences with medical
malpractice insurance, and insurance remains a largely State-regulated
industry. Each State should endeavor to develop its own solution to
rising medical malpractice rates because each state has its own unique
problems. Some States--such as my own, Vermont--while experiencing
problems, do not face as great a crisis as others.
But another fact of the insurance industry's business model requires
a Federal legislative correction its blanket exemption from federal
anti-trust laws. Insurers have for years enjoyed a special benefit in
our marketplace. The McCarran-Ferguson Act permits insurance companies
to operate without being subject to most of the Federal antitrust laws,
and our Nation's physicians and their patients are suffering from this
special treatment. Using their exemption, insurers can collude to set
rates, resulting in higher premiums than true competition would achieve
and because of this exemption, enforcement officials cannot investigate
any such collusion. If Congress is serious about controlling rising
premiums, we must revoke this blanket exemption created in the
McCarran-Ferguson Act.
That is why today I introduce the ``Medical Malpractice Insurance
Antitrust Act of 2005.'' I want to thank Senators Kennedy, Boxer,
Corzine, Durbin, Feingold, Mikulski, Obama, Rockefeller, and Salazar
for cosponsoring this essential legislation. Our bill modifies the
McCarran-Ferguson Act for the most pernicious anti-trust offenses:
price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocations. I am hard-pressed to
imagine that anyone could object to a prohibition on insurance
carriers' fixing prices or dividing territories for anticompetitive
purposes. After all, the rest of our Nation's industries manage either
to abide by these laws or pay the consequences.
Many State insurance commissioners police the industry well within
the power they are accorded in their own laws, and some States have
antitrust laws of their own that could cover some anticompetitive
activities in the insurance industry. Our legislation would not affect
regulation of insurance by State insurance commissioners and other
State regulators. There is no reason to continue a system in which the
Federal enforcers are precluded from prosecuting the most harmful
antitrust violations just because they are committed by insurance
companies.
This legislation is a carefully tailored solution to one critical
aspect of the problem of excessive medical malpractice insurance
premiums. I hope that quick action by the Judiciary Committee and then
by the full Senate, will ensure that this real solution is adopted
before more damage is done to the physicians of this country and to the
patients that they serve.
Only professional baseball has enjoyed an anti-trust exemption
comparable to that created for the insurance industry by the McCarran-
Ferguson Act. Senator Hatch and I have joined forces several times in
recent years to scale back that exemption for baseball, and in the Curt
Flood Act of 1998 we successfully eliminated the exemption as it
applied to employment relations. I hope we can work together again to
create more competition in the insurance industry, just as we did with
baseball.
If Congress is serious about helping to control rising medical
malpractice insurance premiums, then we must limit the insurance
industry's broad exemption to Federal antitrust law and promote real
competition in the insurance marketplace.
There being no objection, the executive summary was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
Falling Claims and Rising Premiums in the Medical Malpractice Insurance
Industry
(By Jay Angoff)
Executive Summary
This Report analyzes the 2000-2004 performance of each of
the 15 largest medical malpractice insurers in the United
States rated by A.M. Best, the principal rating service for
the insurance industry. The Report is based primarily on data
from the carriers' 2004 Annual Statements filed with state
insurance departments.
The Report finds the following:
Over the last five years the amount the major medical
malpractice insurers have collected in premiums has more than
doubled, while their claims payouts have remained essentially
flat.
Some malpractice insurers substantially increased their
premiums while both their claims payments and their projected
future claims payments were decreasing.
Malpractice insurers accumulated record amounts of surplus
over the last three years.
Taken together, the malpractice carriers analyzed increased
their net premiums by 120.2% during the period 2000-2004,
although their net claims payments rose by only 5.7%. Thus,
they increased their premiums by 21 times (120.2/5.7 = 21.09)
the increase in their claims payments.
As a result of these two dramatically different trends, the
ratio between these insurers' claims payments and premiums
fell by more than half between 2000 and 2004: it declined
from 69.9% to 33.6% on a net basis, and from 68.8% to 32.1%
on a gross basis. Put another way, in 2004 the leading
medical malpractice insurers took in approximately three
times as much in premiums as they paid out in claims.
Moreover, several insurers substantially increased their
premiums even though their claims payments actually fell--and
fell substantially. For example:
Healthcare Indemnity, Inc. (HCI), an affiliate of HCA
corporation, increased its premiums by $173 million, or 88%,
while its claims payments fell by $74 million, or 32%. As a
result, in 2004 it paid out only 43 cents in claims for each
premium dollar it collected.
ProNational, an affiliate of ProAssurance Corporation,
increased its premiums by $87 million, or 79%, while its
claims payments fell by $43 million, or 63%. As a result, in
2004 it paid out only 13 cents in claims for each premium
dollar it collected.
Medical Assurance, another ProAssurance affiliate,
increased its premiums by $151 million, or 89%, while its
claims payments fell by a third. As a result, in 2004 it paid
out only 10 cents in claims for each premium dollar it
collected.
In addition, Lexington Insurance Company, an affiliate of
AIG, reported that its net written premiums increased from
$21.1 million in 2000 to 483.0 million in 2004--an increase
of $461.9 million, or 2200%--while its net paid losses
increased by only $52.9 million. As a result, in 2004 it paid
out only 14 cents in claims for each premium dollar it
collected.
Finally, even the ratio between the amount the leading
malpractice insurers estimated they would pay out in the
future and the premiums they earn--what insurers somewhat
counter-intuitively call their ``incurred loss'' ratio--
declined by almost 25% between 2000 and 2004. Due to this
decline--which is in addition to the decline in the amounts
these insurers have actually been paying out--they estimated
in 2004 that they would ultimately pay out in claims only
51.4 cents of each premium dollar they earned. Perhaps most
striking, in 2004 these 15 insurers taken together increased
their earned
[[Page S9292]]
premium by 9.3%, even though their incurred losses--the
amount they estimated they would pay out in the future--
declined by 21.1%.
Because of the overall surge in malpractice premiums with
no corresponding surge in claims payments during the last
five years, the leading malpractice insurers have increased
their surplus by more than a third in only three years, and
they are now charging more for malpractice insurance than * *
*
______
By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mrs. Clinton):
S. 1526. A bill to provide education to students in grades 7 through
12 about the importance of higher education; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to
introduce the Roads to Success Act of 2005, which is legislation
designed to expand higher educational and career opportunities for
American students. There is no doubt as to the benefit of receiving a
post-secondary education. The level of education that individuals
accumulate has an important influence on their experience in the labor
market. According to 2002 U.S. Census Bureau statistics on educational
attainment and earnings, the mean earnings of men with a bachelor's
degree is $63,354, while the mean earnings of men with a high school
degree is $32,363. This is a difference of more than $30,000 or 97
percent.
In recent years, there have been clear signs that more Americans are
pursuing higher education opportunities. In June 2002, USA Today
reported that 63 percent of high school graduates go to college
immediately after graduation, the highest percentage in U.S. history.
Yet not all of the news on college graduation rates has been good. Only
18 percent of African Americans and 11 percent of Hispanic high school
graduates earn a bachelor's degree by their late twenties, compared to
33 percent of whites according to the National Center for Education
Statistics, NCES, in 2001. Further, in 2000, NCES reported that 22
percent of low-income, college qualified high school graduates do not
pursue post-secondary education, compared to 4 percent of high-income
graduates.
As I travel through Pennsylvania, I still hear from too many middle
school and high school students that they do not have the preparation
necessary to enroll in higher education institutions. On a trip to the
Commonwealth, I joined Andrew McKelvey--the founder of the McKelvey
Foundation--to announce Federal funding for entrepreneurial
scholarships to rural, low-income Pennsylvania high school graduates.
During that trip, I had a frank discussion with Mr. McKelvey regarding
the need to not only ensure access to funding for students to pursue
higher education, but the need to inform students about the importance
of higher education, as well as prepare students for the application
process.
The bill I am introducing today, the ``Roads to Success Act of
2005'', will help to educate middle school and high school students in
grades 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, about higher education and career
opportunities. This bill will create a program which will provide
students with access to information on higher education and career
development, and prepare students with the skills necessary to plan for
higher education. The availability of information on higher education
opportunities makes an enormous difference to students contemplating
continuing their education at the undergraduate level.
My legislation will authorize a grant to Roads to Success, a
nonprofit educational organization, to develop a core curriculum to be
taught in the classroom to equip middle and high school students with
the appropriate skills and knowledge to pursue post-secondary education
and their career goals. Given the importance of higher education, it
makes sense to prepare students for the undergraduate process as part
of their class instruction to ensure that all students have access to
the necessary information to attain their objectives. To this end,
middle schools and high schools participating in the program will
dedicate one hour each week of their classroom activity to higher
education and career preparation of students utilizing the core
curriculum.
Additionally, I seek to create a network of intensive academic
support for students by encouraging public-private partnerships to
emphasize the importance of higher education and career development.
Partnerships with private entities create a unique opportunity for
middle schools and high schools to supplement and enhance the core
curriculum by offering appropriate enrichments, including guest
speakers, videos and web-based services. For example, through these
partnerships, middle school and high school students will gain first-
hand knowledge of the skills that businesses are seeking by having the
opportunity to speak with business leaders, as well as perhaps tour
local facilities. This will underscore the significance and importance
of higher education for students as they embark on their future career
paths.
To implement this initiative, my bill will authorize $10 million
annually for fiscal years 2006 through 2011, for Roads to Success to
develop a core curriculum which has as its cornerstone increasing
awareness of the importance of higher education, developing career
awareness, building life skills, and providing education planning to
students. Under this legislation, Roads to Success will award subgrants
to five State educational agencies to offer higher education
preparation programs using the core curriculum in middle and high
schools with historically low rates of student application and
admission to post-secondary institutions.
It is my sincere hope that this act will ensure that students who
wish to enroll in a higher education institution will have access to
the tools and resources necessary to help them plan for undergraduate
study. We must take this step to encourage students to pursue their
educational and career goals--especially those who might not otherwise
have this opportunity. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring
this act, and urge its swift adoption.
______
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mr. Reed):
S. 527. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to
immunizations against vaccine-preventable diseases, including
influenza, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, Senator Reed and I are introducing
the ``Vaccine Administration and Supply Act.'' Congressman Waxman is
introducing a companion bill in the House. Our goal is to improve
vaccine accessibility and administration across the country, by
guaranteeing that every American has access to recommended vaccines,
and strengthening our public health infrastructure.
Vaccines are one of the Nation's most significant success stories in
public health. They have wiped out mass killers such as polio and
smallpox, and protected millions of Americans from other life-
threatening or debilitating infectious diseases. They save lives, and
save costs too, in needless treatment and hospitalization for illnesses
that could have been prevented.
Today, the threat of infectious disease is ever present. Deadly
strains of naturally occurring viruses, such as avian flu, are moving
from animals to humans. The possibility of bioterrorism is looming.
Accessibility to vaccines and improving our public health
infrastructure are essential to protect the health of our communities
and our Nation--and efforts to do so are long overdue.
We have made remarkable progress in protecting children from vaccine-
preventable diseases by making vaccines available to uninsured and
underinsured children at no cost through the Vaccines for Children and
Immunization Grant programs. As a result, childhood immunization rates
and disease reductions are near all-time highs.
On the other hand, there is a huge gap in adult and adolescent
vaccination. Each year, 46,000 to 48,000 adults die from diseases that
could be cheaply and effectively prevented by vaccination. Many of
these persons miss the opportunity to protect themselves against
vaccine-preventable diseases because they don't have adequate insurance
coverage.
Our legislation will close this gap in public health by mandating
that the Secretary of HHS establish an immunization program for adults.
Uninsured and underinsured adolescents and adults will be vaccinated at
no charge
[[Page S9293]]
in any Federally qualified health center, or local or State public
health department.
Participating States will also receive increased funding for the
Immunization Grant Program, so that Program Managers can administer
vaccinations to uninsured and underinsured citizens, as well as conduct
education and awareness campaigns on the importance of vaccination and
carry out strategies to increase vaccination rates throughout the
States.
In addition to increasing vaccine accessibility through State
programs, this bill will also improve the national immunization
infrastructure. Last year's shortage of influenza vaccine was a wake up
call for greater national coordination of vaccine allocation and
delivery. Our bill requires the Secretary of HHS to purchase and
stockpile needed vaccines, and develop an emergency response plan,
within one-year of enactment, to guide States in administering vaccines
in the case of a shortage or emergency.
As our Health Subcommittee on Bioterrorism and Public Health
Preparedness continues to discuss provisions to encourage the
development of vaccines and other countermeasures to bioterrorism, this
legislation will establish the infrastructure needed to ensure the
efficient administration of such countermeasures in a time of crisis.
The Association of State and Territorial Health Officials said it
well when stating, ``Immunization is a vital public health tool and an
essential element in protecting the nation's health.'' In light of the
obvious dangers, it is urgent for Congress to increase immunization
rates and ensure the efficient allocation of vaccines in an emergency.
I commend Congressman Waxman for his leadership on this important
health issue in the House, and Senator Reed and I urge our colleagues
in the Senate to join in this important effort to improve our public
health preparedness.
______
By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr. Bunning):
S. 1528. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
for the tax treatment of horses, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Equine
Equity Act of 2005 with my colleague from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln, and
my colleague from Kentucky, Mr. Bunning.
Each spring on the first Saturday of May, the sporting world turns
its attention to my hometown of Louisville for the annual running of
the Kentucky Derby. It has been appropriately called ``the most
exciting two minutes in sports,'' and has given us such great champions
as Secretariat, Seattle Slew, and Smarty Jones.
The activities surrounding the Derby also allow Kentucky to show off
one of its signature industries, the horse industry. Long after the
pageantry and festivities of Derby day, the horse industry remains a
vital part of Kentucky's economy and cultural heritage. Horses are
Kentucky's largest agricultural product. The horse industry contributes
$3.5 billion to Kentucky's economy, and directly employs more than
50,000 Kentuckians.
While many Americans appropriately identify the horse industry as one
of Kentucky's signature industries, the industry's economic impact
extends well beyond the borders of the Commonwealth. A recent economic
impact study by the firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu found that the
horse industry contributes approximately $39 billion in direct economic
impacts to the U.S. economy each year. The industry sustains 1.4
million full-time equivalent jobs each year, with over 460,000 of those
jobs created from direct spending within the industry.
Nearly 2 million Americans own horses, either for racing, showing, or
recreational purposes. While the popular image of horse owners might
focus on Millionaire's Row at Churchill Downs on Derby Day, the facts
tell a different story. Only about one-quarter, 28 percent, of U.S.
horse owners have incomes greater than $100,000. More than one in every
three, 34 percent, horse owners has an income of less than $50,000.
Like many businesses, outside investments are essential to the
operation and growth of the horse industry. Without investors willing
to buy and breed horses, it is impossible for the industry to thrive.
Unfortunately, there are several unfair, unwise provisions in Federal
law that discourage investment in the horse industry.
In an effort to address these concerns, today I introduce the Equine
Equity Act with my colleague from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln, and my good
friend from Kentucky, Mr. Bunning. The Equine Equity Act includes three
key provisions.
First, it will provide capital gains treatment for horses that is
equal to other investments. Nearly all capital assets are eligible to
receive more favorable capital gains tax treatment once they are held
for 12 months. However, horses and cattle must be held for 2 years to
receive capital gains treatment. This legislation would reduce the
capital gains holding period for horses from 24 months to 12 months.
Second, it will apply equal depreciation standards for all
racehorses. Current law states that racehorses that begin training when
older than 24 months of age are depreciated over 3 years, while those
horses that begin training before reaching 24 months of age are
depreciated over 7 years.
Most horses begin training before they reach 24 months, but their
racing careers do not last 7 years. This legislation would reduce the
depreciation period for racehorses to 3 years to more accurately
reflect the racing life of horses.
Finally, the Equine Equity Act would establish equity in eligibility
for disaster assistance between horses and other livestock. Most
livestock, beef, dairy, sheep, and goats, are eligible for Federal
disaster assistance during a drought, but horses are not. This
legislation would make horses eligible for disaster-assistance programs
offered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
I appreciate the willingness of my colleagues from Arkansas and
Kentucky to join me in introducing this legislation of tremendous
importance to our States. I look forward to working with them and our
colleagues in the Senate to enact this bipartisan bill into law.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, 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. 1528
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 ``Equine Equity Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. 3-YEAR DEPRECIATION FOR ALL RACE HORSES.
(a) In General.--Clause (i) of section 168(e)(3)(A) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining 3-year property) is
amended to read as follows:
``(i) any race horse,''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service on or after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 3. REDUCTION OF HOLDING PERIOD TO 12 MONTHS FOR PURPOSES
OF DETERMINING WHETHER HORSES ARE SECTION 1231
ASSETS.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 1231(b)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to definition of
property used in the trade or business) is amended by
striking ``and horses''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2005.
SEC. 4. LIVESTOCK ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--In carrying out a livestock assistance,
compensation, or feed program, the Secretary of Agriculture
shall include horses within the definition of ``livestock''
covered by the program.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 602(2) of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7
U.S.C. 1471(2)) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``horses,'' after ``bison,''; and
(B) by striking ``equine animals used for food or in the
production of food,''.
(2) Section 806 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-387; 114 Stat. 1549A-51) is amended
by inserting ``(including losses to elk, reindeer, bison, and
horses)'' after ``livestock losses''.
(3) Section 10104(a) of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 1472(a)) is amended by
striking ``and bison'' and inserting ``bison, and horses''.
(4) Section 203(d)(2) of the Agricultural Assistance Act of
2003 (Public Law 108-7; 117 Stat. 541) is amended by striking
``and bison'' and inserting ``bison, and horses''.
(c) Applicability.--
(1) In general.--This section and the amendments made by
this section apply to
[[Page S9294]]
losses resulting from a disaster that occurs on or after the
date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Prior losses.--This section and the amendments made by
this section do not apply to losses resulting from a disaster
that occurred before the date of enactment of this Act.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today: I am pleased to join with Senator
McCain to introduce the City of Yuma Improvement Act of 2005. This bill
authorizes the conveyance to the city of Yuma of six small parcels of
Federal land currently held by the Bureau of Reclamation in exchange
for three railroad parcels owned by the city on which the Bureau of
Reclamation rail line exists. A companion bill has already been
introduced in the House by Congressmen Grijalva and Franks.
These land conveyances will enable the city to complete the
redevelopment of the riverfront in downtown Yuma. The Riverfront Master
Redevelopment Plan was approved by the City Council in November, 2001.
The plan was developed through a joint planning process with the city
and the developer. The city's responsibility is to amass the property
along the riverfront. The developer must raise the needed capital. The
redevelopment includes the development of a welcome center, a new
hotel, a conference center, and mixed-use retail stores. This
redevelopment is designed to connect Main Street with the Heritage Area
and the river to enhance the quality of life of Yuma's citizens and one
of the primary economic assets of the area--tourism.
Most of the land in this 22 acre area is already city-owned. However,
the Bureau of Reclamation does own several parcels within the
redevelopment area that the city seeks to acquire. Since 2001, when the
redevelopment plan was approved, the city and the Bureau have been
working together to effectuate this acquisition for this public
purpose. These efforts include: relocating, at the city's expense, the
Bureau facilities that were within the redevelopment area and
completing the necessary environmental analyses of the project area,
including historic resource studies, site assessments, and asbestos and
lead-based paint inspections.
Essentially, the deal is complete with one exception: the authority
to accomplish the conveyances. Currently, the Bureau of Reclamation
does not have the authority to exchange the lands it possesses for the
railroad parcels it seeks--it must be done legislatively. There is
broad support in Yuma for this legislated land swap given its public
purpose objectives, thorough planning, and the economic opportunity it
brings. I hope my colleagues agree and will work with me to pass this
legislation this year.
______
By Mr. ENZI (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Baucus,
Mr. Grassley, Mrs. Murray, and Mrs. Dole):
S. 1531. A bill to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services
to expand and intensify programs with respect to research and related
activities concerning elder falls; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, these people all have something in common:
the former Queen Mother of Britain; diet guru Dr. Robert Atkins; former
Tonight Show co-host Ed McMahon; former first lady Nancy Reagan; and
former Senator Bob Dole. What is it? They are all famous seniors who
have suffered a fall during the past three years that had serious
repercussions on their lives.
Queen Elizabeth's mother had a history of falling. She underwent a
major operation in 1995 to replace her right hip and had a second hip
replacement in 1998 when she broke her left hip. In 2000, she tripped
and fell in her sitting room and fractured the left-hand side of her
collarbone. Then, in 2002 at 101-years-old, she stumbled again in her
sitting room while getting up from a chair and cut her arm.
Dr. Robert Atkins, the creator of the high-protein, low-carbohydrate
Atkins diet, suffered a severe head trauma in 2003 when an accidental
fall outside his New York office left him comatose. Although surgeons
removed a blood clot to relieve the pressure on his brain, the 72-year-
old died eight days later.
In March of this year, former Tonight Show co-host Ed McMahon spent
his 82nd birthday in the hospital after a fall in his Beverly Hills
home left him with a mild concussion and a gash in his head that
required stitches.
Just last month, former first lady Nancy Reagan slipped and fell in
her London hotel room. Fortunately, she was not seriously injured, but
was told by doctors to limit her activities for two weeks until the
pain subsided and full mobility returned.
The final story hits even closer to home. In January of this year,
81-year-old former Senator and presidential candidate Bob Dole felt
light-headed and suffered a near fatal fall while putting away a
suitcase. After a quick trip to the hospital to stitch up a cut from
his eyeglasses, he was taken back home. Later, he felt ill and had to
be taken back to Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Doctors worked fast
to save his life. In the fall he had severely damaged his left ``good''
arm, and he suffered bleeding in his head which was worsened by the
blood thinners he was given a month earlier after a hip replacement
operation. After spending 22 days at Walter Reed, he told a reporter
that he was ``getting better slowly'' and that the recovery was
``humiliating'' at times.
As evidenced, falling is a very common and serious problem for older
persons. These stories demonstrate the fact that falls can happen to
anyone--even the rich and famous. A new report finds that although the
life expectancy for Americans has reached an all-time high and senior
citizens are more active than previous generations were, they are also
reporting to emergency rooms in greater numbers for fall-related
injuries. Falls can result in decreased physical function and mobility,
disability, reduced independence, and a diminished quality of life.
Loss of confidence and fear of falling can lead to further functional
decline, depression, feelings of helplessness, and social isolation.
The statistics are overwhelming. More than one-third of adults age 65
years and older fall each year. Falls are the leading cause of injury
deaths among individuals in that age group. In 2002, falls among older
adults accounted for 12,800 deaths and 1,640,000 emergency department
visits.
Hospital admissions for hip fractures among the elderly have
increased from 231,000 in 1988 to 327,000 in 2001. One in 5 older
Americans who suffer a hip fracture die within a year, and 1 in 5
people with a hip fracture end up in a nursing home within a year.
Among people 75 years and older, those who fall are four to five times
more likely to be admitted to a long-term care facility for a year or
longer.
Annually, more than 80,000 individuals who are over 65 years of age
sustain a traumatic brain injury as a result of a fall.
A recent study of people age 72 and older found that the average
health care cost of a fall injury was $19,440. This figure does not
include physician services. The total medical cost of all fall injuries
for people age 65 and older was calculated in 2000 to be $19.5 billion.
By 2020, the cost of fall injuries is expected to reach $43.8 billion,
in current dollars.
Given our aging population, by the year 2040, the number of hip
fractures is expected to exceed 500,000--the annual cost of which is
projected to be a shocking $240 billion.
To make matters worse, given the aging baby boomers, more and more
elderly will be susceptible to falls. By the year 2040, the 65 and
older population will more than double to about 77.2 million, and the
relative growth rate is even faster for people over 85.
It seems that we've come to expect that a fall by an older relative
is just a natural part of aging, when it is not. As the old adage says
so well: ``An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.'' Almost
without exception, these falls are preventable. Older adults who have
fallen previously or who stumble frequently are two to three times more
likely to fall within the next year. We need to take action to ensure
that doesn't happen.
Last year, Senator Mikulski and I introduced the ``Keeping Seniors
Safe From Falls Act of 2004,'' which passed the Senate by unanimous
consent. Today, we are reintroducing this legislation, and we look
forward to working with our colleagues so that it not only passes the
Senate, but is signed into law.
Our bill will direct the Department of Health and Human Services to
oversee
[[Page S9295]]
and support national and local education campaigns focusing on reducing
falls among older adults and preventing repeat falls. It also calls for
research in areas such as identifying older adults at high risk for
falling; designing, implementing and evaluating the most effective fall
prevention interventions; improving diagnosis, treatment, and
rehabilitation of older adults who have fallen; tailoring effective
strategies to specific populations; and eliminating barriers to
adopting proven fall prevention strategies. In addition, the bill
supports demonstration and research projects to improve the science
behind preventing falls. It also requires the Secretary to evaluate the
effect of falls on health care costs, the potential for reducing falls,
and the most effective strategies for reducing fall-related health care
costs. Finally, the bill authorizes the appropriation of funds for each
of fiscal years 2007 through 2009 in order to carry out its provisions.
I look forward to working again with Senator Mikulski, my colleagues
on the HELP Committee, and the wide variety of groups who support this
bill. I urge you to support this legislation that will help to keep our
nation's seniors--ourselves, our family members, and our friends--safe
from falls so that they may have a chance to fully enjoy and savor
their ``golden years'' in a safer and healthier fashion.
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. 1531
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 ``Keeping Seniors Safe From
Falls Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Falls are the leading cause of injury deaths among
individuals who are over 65 years of age.
(2) In 2002, falls among older adults accounted for 12,800
deaths and 1,640,000 emergency department visits.
(3) Hospital admissions for hip fractures among the elderly
have increased from 231,000 admissions in 1988 to 327,000 in
2001.
(4) Annually, more than 80,000 individuals who are over 65
years of age sustain a traumatic brain injury as a result of
a fall.
(5) The total medical cost of all fall injuries for people
age 65 and older was calculated in 2000 to be
$19,500,000,000.
(6) A national approach to reducing falls among older
adults, which focuses on the daily life of senior citizens in
residential, institutional, and community settings, is
needed.
SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT.
Part J of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 280b et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 393B (as added by section 1401
of Public Law 106-386) as section 393C and transferring such
section so that it appears after section 393B (as added by
section 1301 of Public Law 106-310); and
(2) by inserting after section 393C (as redesignated by
paragraph (1)) the following:
``SEC. 393D. PREVENTION OF FALLS AMONG OLDER ADULTS.
``(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
``(1) to develop effective public education strategies in a
national initiative to reduce falls among older adults in
order to educate older adults, family members, employers,
caregivers, and others;
``(2) to intensify services and conduct research to
determine the most effective approaches to preventing and
treating falls among older adults; and
``(3) to require the Secretary to evaluate the effect of
falls on health care costs, the potential for reducing falls,
and the most effective strategies for reducing health care
costs associated with falls.
``(b) Public Education.--The Secretary shall--
``(1) oversee and support a national education campaign to
be carried out by a nonprofit organization with experience in
designing and implementing national injury prevention
programs, that is directed principally to older adults, their
families, and health care providers, and that focuses on
reducing falls among older adults and preventing repeat
falls; and
``(2) award grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements to
qualified organizations, institutions, or consortia of
qualified organizations and institutions, for the purpose of
organizing State-level coalitions of appropriate State and
local agencies, safety, health, senior citizen, and other
organizations to design and carry out local education
campaigns, focusing on reducing falls among older adults and
preventing repeat falls.
``(c) Research.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
``(A) conduct and support research to--
``(i) improve the identification of older adults who have a
high risk of falling;
``(ii) improve data collection and analysis to identify
fall risk and protective factors;
``(iii) design, implement, and evaluate the most effective
fall prevention interventions;
``(iv) improve strategies that are proven to be effective
in reducing falls by tailoring these strategies to specific
populations of older adults;
``(v) conduct research in order to maximize the
dissemination of proven, effective fall prevention
interventions;
``(vi) intensify proven interventions to prevent falls
among older adults;
``(vii) improve the diagnosis, treatment, and
rehabilitation of elderly fall victims and those at high risk
for falls; and
``(viii) assess the risk of falls occurring in various
settings;
``(B) conduct research concerning barriers to the adoption
of proven interventions with respect to the prevention of
falls among older adults;
``(C) conduct research to develop, implement, and evaluate
the most effective approaches to reducing falls among high-
risk older adults living in communities and long-term care
and assisted living facilities; and
``(D) evaluate the effectiveness of community programs
designed to prevent falls among older adults.
``(2) Educational support.--The Secretary, either directly
or through awarding grants, contracts, or cooperative
agreements to qualified organizations, institutions, or
consortia of qualified organizations and institutions, shall
provide professional education for physicians and allied
health professionals, and aging service providers in fall
prevention, evaluation, and management.
``(d) Demonstration Projects.--The Secretary shall carry
out the following:
``(1) Oversee and support demonstration and research
projects to be carried out by qualified organizations,
institutions, or consortia of qualified organizations and
institutions, in the following areas:
``(A) A multistate demonstration project assessing the
utility of targeted fall risk screening and referral
programs.
``(B) Programs designed for community-dwelling older adults
that utilize multicomponent fall intervention approaches,
including physical activity, medication assessment and
reduction when possible, vision enhancement, and home
modification strategies.
``(C) Programs that are targeted to new fall victims who
are at a high risk for second falls and which are designed to
maximize independence and quality of life for older adults,
particularly those older adults with functional limitations.
``(D) Private sector and public-private partnerships to
develop technologies to prevent falls among older adults and
prevent or reduce injuries if falls occur.
``(2)(A) Award grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements
to qualified organizations, institutions, or consortia of
qualified organizations and institutions, to design,
implement, and evaluate fall prevention programs using proven
intervention strategies in residential and institutional
settings.
``(B) Award 1 or more grants, contracts, or cooperative
agreements to 1 or more qualified organizations,
institutions, or consortia of qualified organizations and
institutions, in order to carry out a multistate
demonstration project to implement and evaluate fall
prevention programs using proven intervention strategies
designed for single and multifamily residential settings with
high concentrations of older adults, including--
``(i) identifying high-risk populations;
``(ii) evaluating residential facilities;
``(iii) conducting screening to identify high-risk
individuals;
``(iv) providing fall assessment and risk reduction
interventions and counseling;
``(v) coordinating services with health care and social
service providers; and
``(vi) coordinating post-fall treatment and rehabilitation.
``(3) Award 1 or more grants, contracts, or cooperative
agreements to qualified organizations, institutions, or
consortia of qualified organizations and institutions, to
conduct evaluations of the effectiveness of the demonstration
projects described in this subsection.
``(e) Study of Effects of Falls on Health Care Costs.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a review of
the effects of falls on health care costs, the potential for
reducing falls, and the most effective strategies for
reducing health care costs associated with falls.
``(2) Report.--Not later than 36 months after the date of
enactment of the Keeping Seniors Safe From Falls Act of 2005,
the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report describing
the findings of the Secretary in conducting the review under
paragraph (1).
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--In order to carry
out this section, there are authorized to be appropriated--
``(1) to carry out the national public education provisions
described in subsection (b)(1), $3,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2007 through 2009;
``(2) to carry out the State public education campaign
provisions of subsection (b)(2), $5,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2007 through 2009;
``(3) to carry out research projects described in
subsection (c), $8,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007
through 2009;
[[Page S9296]]
``(4) to carry out the demonstration projects described in
subsection (d)(1), $4,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007
through 2009; and
``(5) to carry out the demonstration and research projects
described in subsection (d)(2), $5,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2007 through 2009.''.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Enzi in
introducing the Keeping Seniors Safe from Falls Act of 2005. Falls are
a serious public health problem that affects millions of seniors each
year. This bill expands research and education on elder falls to help
keep seniors safe and in their own homes longer.
The facts are staggering. One out of every three Americans over age
65 falls every year. In 2002, over 12,800 seniors died and
approximately 1.6 million seniors visited an emergency department as a
result of a fall. Falls are the leading cause of injury deaths among
seniors. It is estimated that annually more than 80,000 individuals
over 65 years of age sustain a traumatic brain injury as a result of a
fall. Falls can be financially disastrous for families, and falls place
a serious financial strain on our health care system. By 2020, senior
falls are estimated to cost the health care system more than $32
billion.
These facts do not begin to tell the story of what falls can mean for
seniors and their loved ones. Falls don't discriminate. Many of us have
friends or relatives who have fallen. A fall can have a devastating
impact on a person's physical, emotional, and mental health. If an
older woman loses her footing on her front porch steps, falls, and
suffers a hip fracture, she would likely spend about two weeks in the
hospital, and there is a 50 percent chance that she would not return
home or live independently as a result of her injuries.
With some help, there are simple ways that seniors can improve the
safety of their homes and make a fall far less likely. Home
modifications like hand rails in the bathroom, rubber mats on slippery
tile floors, and cordless telephones that seniors can keep nearby can
make a big difference. Well trained pharmacists can review medications
to make sure that two drugs do not interact to cause dizziness and
throw a senior off balance.
That is why I teamed up with Senator Enzi to introduce this important
bill. This legislation is about getting behind our Nation's seniors and
giving help to those who practice self-help. This bill creates public
education campaigns for seniors, their families, and health care
providers about how to prevent falls. It expands research on elder
falls to develop better ways to prevent falls and to improve the
treatment and rehabilitation of elder falls victims. This legislation
also requires an evaluation of the effect of falls on health care
costs, ways we can reduce falls, and effective solutions that can be
adopted that can help reduce health care costs associated with falls.
Reducing the number of falls will help seniors live longer,
healthier, more independent lives. This bill has the strong support of
the National Safety Council, the Home Safety Council and the National
Council on Aging, and has been supported in the past by over 30
national and local aging and safety organizations. I look forward to
working with Senator Enzi and my colleagues on the Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions Committee to get this bill signed into law.
______
By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Grassley):
S. 1532. A bill to amend title 18 of the United States Code to
criminalize acts of agroterrorism, and to enhance the protection of the
United States agricultural industry and food security through the
increased prevention, detection, response and recovery planning; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce the
Agroterrorism Prevention Act of 2005, which would amend Title 18 of the
United States Code to criminalize acts of agroterrorism, and to enhance
the protection of the United States agricultural industry and food
security through increased prevention, detection, response and recovery
planning.
Since the events of September 11, 2001, Congress has taken
substantive actions to protect America and indeed, the world from the
threat of terrorism. Yet, there is a significant component of the
United States that is at risk from terrorist attacks, and that is
American agriculture. The United States agriculture industry accounts
for 13 percent of the Nation's gross domestic product, makes up 8
percent of our foreign trade, and accounts for over $192 billion in
cash receipts. More specifically in Pennsylvania, agriculture is the
number one industry with over 59,000 farms and ranches producing cash
receipts exceeding $4 billion annually. Less than 2 percent of the
American people are considered farmers or ranchers; however, they are
responsible for feeding 100 percent of the American population. It is
incumbent upon us in Congress to do everything in our power to ensure
that the American farmer and rancher, and our Nation's food supply, are
protected from any act of terrorism.
During the 108th Congress, I held four forums on the issue of
agroterrorism and food security at the Pennsylvania Department of
Agriculture working in conjunction with the PA Secretary of Agriculture
to address the needs and concerns of Pennsylvania's producers,
processors, commodity representatives, veterinarians, public health
officials, university administrators, and local government
representatives. Collectively, the comments and issues raised at these
forums provided the impetus to craft this necessary and timely
legislation.
This legislation would afford the American farmer, rancher, and the
United States agriculture industry the protection it deserves. My bill
would amend Title 18 of the United States Code to criminalize the act
of agroterrorism, ensuring that we have a legal recourse against
individuals seeking to disrupt our interstate commerce and foreign
trade, or who try to coerce our civilian population or government. An
agroterrist act would be defined as a criminal act that consists of
causing, financing, or attempting to cause damage or harm to, or
destruction of, a crop, livestock, raw agricultural commodity, food
product, farm or ranch equipment, a material, or any other property
associated with agriculture, or a person engaged in an agricultural
activity, that is committed to intimidate or coerce a civilian
population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or
coercion; or to disrupt interstate commerce or foreign commerce of the
United States agricultural industry. Further, I have included the death
penalty provision in this legislation to be consistent with existing
laws concerning acts of terrorism.
Beyond criminalizing the act of agroterrorism, this legislation would
provide farmers and ranchers with on-farm bio-security resources; tools
that reduce the potential for disease outbreaks. Through these
resources, our farmers and ranchers would be able develop preparedness,
response and recovery planning techniques. These techniques would
enable farmers and ranchers to control access to their farms, separate
animal shipping vehicles from animal feed facilities, and know what
risks visitors present. Ultimately, the intent of this provision is to
ensure that our first responders have the information, training, and
critical infrastructure they need to react aggressively to an incident
of agroterrorism.
The impact of globalization affects agriculture in ways that many
would be unaware. For example, livestock and crop diseases can be
obtained and disseminated with ever increasing ease. These diseases are
endemic to other parts of the world and can be extracted from common
materials, such as soil. Additionally, agricultural inspections at
ports of entry, the first line of defense against the entry of foreign
animal and plant diseases, have declined over the last two years at a
time when imports have increased. Therefore, I have called for the
Secretaries of Homeland Security, Agriculture, Interior, Health and
Human Services, the Attorney General, and the Director of National
Intelligence to coordinate and enhance monitoring, surveillance, and
intelligence capabilities concerning threats, delivery systems, border
controls, and actions that could be directed against the agriculture
sector.
This legislation would authorize significant grant funding for States
to establish state and local emergency response plans, information
management, and to provide training for first responders, in the event
of an animal or plant disease outbreak. The 2001 foot
[[Page S9297]]
and mouth disease outbreak in England required extensive intervention
to eradicate and control the spread of disease. Therefore, the question
remains if our Nation is ready to respond to such an outbreak, whether
caused by a natural event or an act of terrorism.
Additionally, this legislation would authorize funding for pilot
grant demonstrations concerning on-farm bio-security. The majority of
our Nation's farmers, ranchers, and processors are family owned or
small businesses, and they need our assistance in strengthening and
changing their practices to meet the challenges they are facing in this
war on terror. It is our duty as their representatives to provide the
tools they need to preserve the American farm and ranch.
This legislation would ensure that our National Veterinary Stockpile
contains sufficient amounts of animal vaccine, antiviral, or
therapeutic products to appropriately respond to the most damaging
animal diseases affecting human health and the economy. Additionally,
let us not think that agroterrorism pertains only to animals. A plant
disease event can impact our agricultural economy as well. Therefore, I
have included provisions to ensure that our U.S. National Germplasm
system can respond to such an event with the use of disease-resistant
seed varieties.
Compounding the threat of agroterrorism is the fact that the United
States is currently experiencing a shortage of veterinarians in rural
agricultural areas. This results in an inability to respond to a
disease outbreak whether natural or an act of terrorism. In response to
this decline, this legislation would provide both educational debt
repayment for veterinarians serving American agriculture during a
disease outbreak and capacity building grants for colleges and schools
of veterinary medicine to design higher education training programs in
exotic animal diseases, epidemiology, and public health.
The last provision of this legislation would require the Secretaries
of Homeland Security, Agriculture, HHS, Interior, and the Administrator
of EPA to submit a report to Congress that describes the feasibility
and need for modernizing or replacing current federal Biological Level
3 and Biological Level 4 laboratories responsible for research,
technology development, diagnostic, and forensic activities on plant
and animal diseases, including zoonotic diseases. As a nation we cannot
adequately fight a modern war on terrorism using technology and
laboratories that have exceeded their capability and useful life span.
I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support this legislation, which
would secure our Nation's most critical infrastructure, our food
supply. As a nation, we cannot take for granted that our food supply
will not be susceptible to terrorist activities. The measures called
for in this legislation would not impose any new regulations on our
farmers, ranchers, or processors but rather would provide them with the
tools necessary to counteract agroterrorism. Without question, the time
has come for concerted action to ensure the protection of American
agriculture.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Mr. DeWine):
S. 1533. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
a tax incentive to individuals teaching in elementary and secondary
schools located in rural or high unemployment areas and to individuals
who achieve certification from the National Board of Professional
Teaching Standards, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, I rise, along with my
cosponsor, Senator DeWine, to reintroduce legislation called I TEACH,
Incentives to Educate America's Children Act of 2005. This legislation
is an investment to support teachers in rural areas, and high poverty
areas. It provides a $1,000 refundable tax credit for those teachers
willing to serve in challenging schools. The bill also gives every
teacher the chance to earn a refundable tax credit by offering a $1,000
refundable tax credit for every teacher who earns accreditation by the
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. A National Board
Teacher in a rural school or high poverty school would receive a $2,000
credit which hopefully would promote retention of our best teachers.
According to the most recent survey by the American Federation of
Teachers, the average teacher salary is $45,771. While teacher salaries
rose an average of 3.3 percent, the health insurance benefits spiked an
average 13 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The
starting salary for a new teacher is estimated to be $30,496. Given the
costs of college, the average student graduates with a debt of $19,400
and face loan payments of $210 a month, it is difficult for young,
eager graduates to pursue careers in teaching and pay off their student
debt and other living expenses.
It is sad when a dedicated young person decides that they simply
cannot ``afford'' to be a teacher, but this happens. The I TEACH Act
will help by providing meaningful tax credits to teachers willing to
serve in rural areas or high poverty schools, and it will provide a
strong financial incentive to keep quality teachers in the classrooms
by rewarding teachers who earn National Board certification. Thirty
States provide some type of financial incentive to National Board
teachers, and this refundable tax credit will support such efforts. For
example, West Virginia offers a $2,500 bonus for National Board
teachers. If I TEACH is enacted, a National Board teacher in my State
would receive a 9 percent bonus which is a meaningful incentive.
Our teachers are essential professionals that inspire and educate our
children, who represent the next generation. Our teachers deserve our
respect and real support. I urge my colleagues to work with me to enact
I TEACH and reward our teachers.
______
By Mr. AKAKA:
S. 1537. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for
the establishment of Parkinson's Disease Research Education and
Clinical Centers in the Veterans Health Administration of the
Department of Veterans Affairs and Multiple Sclerosis Centers of
Excellence; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise proudly today to introduce
legislation that would establish Parkinson's Disease Research Education
and Clinical Centers and Multiple Sclerosis, MS, Centers of Excellence
in the Veterans Health Administration of the Department of Veterans
Affairs, VA. The need for research and care is extremely pressing at a
time when VA is dealing with meeting the demands of veterans suffering
from debilitating neurological diseases.
VA has been a leader in the advancement of medicine and should be
applauded for its progressive and innovative research endeavors. Yet,
continued strides in specialized research are necessary to address the
specific health care needs of our veterans. Through the establishment
of the Parkinson's Disease and Multiple Sclerosis Centers, VA
clinicians and educators will be able to gain a better understanding of
these diseases that affect not just our veterans, but Americans across
the nation. It is through this understanding that clinicians will be
able to provide more effective patient care, treatment, and education.
The establishment of the Parkinson's Disease Research Education and
Clinical Centers stems from the same spirit that inspired the
conception of a great alliance formed between VA and the National
Parkinson Foundation, Inc., NPF, in June of 1999. This alliance created
an opportunity for the two entities to come together to develop
research and treatment symposiums, provide information concerning
Parkinson's disease, and also provide VA physicians that treat at least
20,000 Parkinson's patients with continuing education.
Those affected with Parkinson's Disease not only suffer from symptoms
that manifest themselves physically, such as through tremors, muffled
speech, slowness and impaired mobility. There are also psychological
effects characterized in the form of depression for those suffering
from this diseases. Through these centers, clinicians and educators can
determine better ways to manage symptoms associated with Parkinson's
Disease, as well as those symptoms such as fatigue and spasticity
associated with MS that will give veterans suffering from these
diseases a better quality of life.
Since the time of its inception, the VA health care system was tasked
with
[[Page S9298]]
meeting the special needs of its veteran patients. Though VA is
providing the necessary care to those currently affected by the
disease, more can be done to develop new treatments to reduce the
symptoms and slow down the progression of the disease.
This legislation will provide VA with the opportunity to establish
these centers and mark a new phase in the pursuit of enhanced treatment
for those that struggle with the daily challenges imposed by these
diseases, which includes not only the veteran patients but their
families as well. The Parkinson's Disease Research Education and
Clinical Centers and Multiple Sclerosis Centers of Excellence will also
be beacons of hope towards finding a cure for degenerative neurological
diseases.
I ask my colleagues for their support of this bill as a commitment to
advancing research and education for veterans battling Parkinson's
Disease and Multiple Sclerosis. I also wish to thank Congressman Lane
Evans, who serves as the ranking member of the House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, for his leadership on this issue.
I ask unanimous consent that the full 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. 1537
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PARKINSON'S DISEASE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, CLINICAL
CENTERS, AND MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS CENTERS OF
EXCELLENCE.
(a) Requirement for Establishment of Centers.--
(1) In general.--Subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 38,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``Sec. 7329. Parkinson's disease research, education, and
clinical centers and multiple sclerosis centers of
excellence
``(a) Designation.--The Secretary, upon the recommendation
of the Under Secretary for Health and pursuant to the
provisions of this section, shall--
``(1) designate--
``(A) at least 6 Department health care facilities as the
locations for centers of Parkinson's disease research,
education, and clinical activities and (subject to the
appropriation of sufficient funds for such purpose); and
``(B) at least 2 Department health care facilities as the
locations for Multiple Sclerosis Centers of Excellence
(subject to the appropriation of sufficient funds for such
purpose); and
``(2) establish and operate such centers at such locations
in accordance with this section.
``(b) Existing Facilities; Geographic Distribution.--In
designating locations for centers under subsection (a), the
Secretary, upon the recommendation of the Under Secretary for
Health, shall--
``(1) designate each Department health care facility that,
as of January 1, 2005, was operating a Parkinson's Disease
Research, Education, and Clinical Center or a Multiple
Sclerosis Center of Excellence unless the Secretary, on the
recommendation of the Under Secretary for Health, determines
that such facility--
``(A) does not meet the requirements of subsection (c);
``(B) has not demonstrated effectiveness in carrying out
the established purposes of such center; or
``(C) has not demonstrated the potential to carry out such
purposes effectively in the reasonably foreseeable future;
and
``(2) assure appropriate geographic distribution of such
facilities.
``(c) Minimum Requirements.--The Secretary may not
designate a health care facility as a location for a center
under subsection (a) unless--
``(1) the peer review panel established under subsection
(d) determines that the proposal submitted by such facility
is among those proposals which meet the highest competitive
standards of scientific and clinical merit; and
``(2) the Secretary, upon the recommendation of the Under
Secretary for Health, determines that the facility has (or
may reasonably be anticipated to develop)--
``(A) an arrangement with an accredited medical school
which provides education and training in neurology and with
which such facility is affiliated under which residents
receive education and training in innovative diagnosis and
treatment of chronic neurodegenerative diseases and movement
disorders, including Parkinson's disease, or in the case of
Multiple Sclerosis Centers, multiple sclerosis disease;
``(B) the ability to attract the participation of
scientists who are capable of ingenuity and creativity in
health-care research efforts;
``(C) a policymaking advisory committee composed of
consumers and appropriate health care and research
representatives of the facility and of the affiliated school
or schools to advise the directors of such facility and such
center on policy matters pertaining to the activities of such
center during the period of the operation of such center;
``(D) the capability to conduct effectively evaluations of
the activities of such center;
``(E) the capability to coordinate, as part of an
integrated national system, education, clinical, and research
activities within all facilities with such centers;
``(F) the capability to jointly develop a consortium of
providers with interest in treating neurodegenerative
diseases, including Parkinson's disease, and other movement
disorders, or multiple sclerosis in the case of Multiple
Sclerosis Centers, at facilities without such centers in
order to ensure better access to state of the art diagnosis,
care, and education for neurodegenerative disorders, or in
the case of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, autoimmune disease
affecting the cental nervous system throughout the health
care system; and
``(G) the capability to develop a national repository in
the health care system for the collection of data on health
services delivered to veterans seeking care for
neurodegenerative diseases, including Parkinson's disease,
and other movement disorders, or in the case of Multiple
Sclerosis Centers, autoimmune disease affecting the central
nervous system.
``(d) Panel.--(1) The Under Secretary for Health shall
establish a panel to assess the scientific and clinical merit
of proposals that are submitted to the Secretary for the
establishment of new centers under this section.
``(2)(A) The membership of the panel shall consist of
experts in neurodegenerative diseases, including Parkinson's
disease and other movement disorders, and, in the case of
Multiple Sclerosis Centers, experts in autoimmune disease
affecting the central nervous system.
``(B) Members of the panel shall serve as consultants to
the Department for a period of no longer than 2 years except
in the case of panelists asked to serve on the initial panel
as specified in subparagraph (C).
``(C) In order to ensure panel continuity, half of the
members of the first panel shall be appointed for a period of
3 years and half for a period of 2 years.
``(3) The panel shall review each proposal submitted to the
panel by the Under Secretary and shall submit its views on
the relative scientific and clinical merit of each such
proposal to the Under Secretary.
``(4) The panel shall not be subject to the Federal
Advisory Committee Act.
``(e) Adequate Funding.--Before providing funds for the
operation of any such center at a health care facility other
than a health care facility designated under subsection
(b)(1), the Secretary shall ensure that--
``(1) the Parkinson's disease center at each facility
designated under subsection (b)(1) is receiving adequate
funding to enable such center to function effectively in the
areas of Parkinson's disease research, education, and
clinical activities; and
``(2) in the case of a new Multiple Sclerosis Center, that
existing centers are receiving adequate funding to enable
such centers to function effectively in the areas of multiple
sclerosis research, education, and clinical activities.
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--(1) There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary
for the support of the research and education activities of
the centers established under subsection (a).
``(2) The Under Secretary for Health shall allocate to such
centers from other funds appropriated generally for the
Department medical services account and medical and
prosthetics research account, as appropriate, such amounts as
the Under Secretary for Health determines appropriate.
``(g) Funding Eligibility and Priority for Parkinson's
Disease Research.--Activities of clinical and scientific
investigation at each center established under subsection (a)
for Parkinson's disease shall--
``(1) be eligible to compete for the award of funding from
funds appropriated for the Department medical and prosthetics
research account; and
``(2) receive priority in the award of funding from such
account to the extent funds are awarded to projects for
research in Parkinson's disease and other movement disorders.
``(h) Funding Eligibility and Priority for Multiple
Sclerosis Research.--Activities of clinical and scientific
investigation at each center established under subsection (a)
for multiple sclerosis shall--
``(1) be eligible to compete for the award of funding from
funds appropriated for the Department medical and prosthetics
research account; and
``(2) receive priority in the award of funding from such
account to the extent funds are awarded to projects for
research in multiple sclerosis and other movement
disorders.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 73 of title 38, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 7328
the following:
``Sec. 7329. Parkinson's disease research, education, and clinical
centers and multiple sclerosis centers of excellence''.
(b) Effective Date.--Section 7329 of title 38, United
States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall take effect on
October 1, 2005.
[[Page S9299]]
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
S. 1538. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand
the incentives for the construction and renovation of public schools;
to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. ROCKFELLER. Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing America's
Better Classroom Act, an important incentive to support school
construction and renovations. I believe that this bill is a wise
investment in education and economic development. It creates jobs as we
build and renovate our schools.
America's Better Classroom Act of 2005 is designed to respond to the
overwhelming need for school construction. The Department of Education
reports that the average public school building is 42 years old. In
1995, GAO estimated that we needed $112 billion for school construction
and renovations. A more recent survey in 2001 in the Journal of
Education Finance indicates that the need is increasing, and the unmet
need for school infrastructure over the next decade is over $200
billion. My State, West Virginia, will need as much as $2 billion for
school construction and renovations, and the cost of construction
increases as the cost of building materials continues to escalate.
America's Better Classroom Act provides the financial tools to help
build and renovate our schools. It will continue the Qualified Zone
Academy Bonding, (QZAB) Program that has helped economically
disadvantaged communities. This provision would provide $2.8 billion to
continue and expand the successful QZAB Program. In recent years, this
program has provided $4.2 million for support school construction and
renovations in disadvantaged communities. Effective programs deserve
continued support.
But we should more broadly expand investment in school construction
because so many school districts need help with school construction and
renovations but cannot qualify for the QZAB program. This is why the
America's Better Classroom Act creates a $22 billion Qualified School
Bonding Program. Funding will be allocated to states based on the Title
1 formula so it is targeted, but the states will have flexibility in
allocating support among school districts.
When I visit schools in West Virginia, I am often stunned by the
aging buildings and compelling needs. In our fast-growing Eastern
Panhandle, we need new schools to deal with a growing population. In
other parts of the State, older school building need renovations to be
safe and conducive learning environments for our students. Also as
technology plays an increasingly important role in education,
classrooms need to be updated.
States and communities need the America's Better Classroom Act so
that we can make needed investments. Also, school construction can play
a positive role in helping to stimulate our economy and create needed
jobs. School construction is a reliable economic stimulus, and an
important investment in our children's education.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
S. 1539. A bill to amend part E of title IV of the Social Security
Act to promote the adoption of children with special needs; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, throughout my career in the Senate, I
have sought to strengthen and improve policies for the most vulnerable
children children who are at-risk of abuse and neglect in their own
homes. The foster care system is the basic safety net for such
children, but common sense tells us that a safe permanent home is the
best place for a child. As Congress clearly stated in the 1997 Adoption
and Safe Families Act, every child deserves a safe, permanent home. Now
the challenge is to reform our program to deliver on this promise.
To truly fulfill that goal, we need to improve the Federal adoption
assistance program, which is why I am introducing the Adoption Equality
Act today. Current law only provides adoption assistance to special
needs children whose parents would have been eligible for the old Aid
to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) as of July 1996. It is
ridiculous to base a child's eligibility for assistance on the income
of the abusive parents from whom they will have been taken for their
own health and safety. Because of this Federal regulation, only half of
special needs children get Federal assistance under current law. I
firmly believe that every child with special needs who will not be
adopted without assistance deserves Federal support. It is a basic
investment to delivering on our commitment to help provide a safe,
permanent home.
As we talk about the importance of families, shouldn't we invest in
helping to create and maintain such families, especially for our most
vulnerable children?
By supporting the Adoption Equality Act, we send a clear signal that
every child deserves a safe, permanent home.
______
By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
S. 1540. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Army and the
Secretary of the Interior to establish a program to improve water
management and contribute to the recovery of endangered species in the
Middle Rio Grande, New Mexico, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, in the American West, we are frequently
faced with the challenge of how best to allocate our scarce water
resources among numerous competing interests. There is no better
example of this challenge than the one that has developed in the past
six years in the Middle Rio Grande Valley in my home State of New
Mexico. However, how this challenge was addressed is illustrative of
what can be accomplished when people are willing to put adversity and
divergent interests aside and work together to solve common problems.
In 1994, the Fish and Wildlife Service listed as endangered the Rio
Grande Silvery Minnow, a fish native to the waters of the Rio Grande in
New Mexico. The listing was followed by a five-year drought which began
in 1999. The drought resulted in an insufficient amount of water to
meet the needs of the Silvery Minnow and led several environmental
groups to file the lawsuit Minnow v. Keys in Federal district court.
After the district court issued a decision, the case was appealed to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit which held
that the Endangered Species Act required that water should be taken
away from municipalities, farmers and industry in order to meet the
needs of the Silvery Minnow. In a water-scarce State like New Mexico,
the ruling rang out like a gun shot and created acrimony amongst those
who are entirely dependant on water from the Rio Grande.
In response, I established the Middle Rio Grande Collaborative
Program in 2000. The program is based on the premise that it is better
to work in the spirit of cooperation to develop solutions to shared
problems regarding resource management including how best to meet the
needs of our endangered species. When left up to the courts, there are
always losers. Since 2000, the collaborative program has been a
remarkable success, bringing together various stakeholders including
Federal and State agencies, cities, Pueblos, environmental groups,
farmers and business interests in an effort to protect our biological
heritage and ecological diversity while meeting the needs of those who
are dependant on the waters of the Rio Grande. Often, the process has
been difficult. However, I'm sure all would agree that it is far
preferable to the alternative of continued litigation. The success of
the program is especially marked when one considers that the program
has lacked specific goals, an organizational structure, a decision
making hierarchy, and formal authorization.
I rise today to introduce the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species
Collaborative Program Act, a bill to provide the program with the
authority it needs to continue its important mission. This bill would
streamline the decision making process of the program, delegate
responsibilities among federal agencies, and provide adequate authority
for Federal participation. I have no doubt that this program will
continue to serve as a model of how to deal with the West's resource
management challenges.
I would like to thank my dear friend and colleague Senator Bingaman,
who I have had the pleasure of serving with in the United States Senate
for the past 22 years for being an original co-sponsor of this
legislation.
[[Page S9300]]
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. 1540
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 ``Middle Rio Grande Endangered
Species Collaborative Program Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Collaborative program.--The term ``Collaborative
Program'' means the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species
Collaborative Program established under section 3(a).
(2) Executive committee.--The term ``Executive Committee''
means the Executive Committee established under section 4(c).
(3) Interests in land and water.--The term ``interests in
land and water'' includes purchases, leases, easements, and
agreements to provide water storage, land, or water that are
obtained from willing sellers, lessors, or contributors in
compliance with applicable Federal, State, or tribal laws.
(4) Middle rio grande.--
(A) In general.--The term ``Middle Rio Grande'' means the
headwaters of the Rio Chama and the Rio Grande, including all
tributaries, from the State line between Colorado and New
Mexico downstream to the elevation corresponding with the
spillway crest of Elephant Butte Dam at 4,457.3 feet mean sea
level.
(B) Exclusion.--The term ``Middle Rio Grande'' excludes the
land area reserved for the full pool of the Elephant Butte
Reservoir.
(5) Middle rio grande conservancy district.--The term
``Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District'' means the
political subdivision of the State of that name, created in
1925.
(6) Project.--
(A) In general.--The term ``project'' means a scientific or
management study, a planning, design, permitting,
construction, operations, maintenance, or replacement
activity, or the acquisition of interests in land or water.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``project'' includes--
(i) a project begun but not completed by the Endangered
Species Collaborative Program before the date of enactment of
this Act; and
(ii) a project recommended by the Executive Committee after
the date of enactment of this Act that carries out the
purposes described in section 3(b).
(7) Rio grande compact.--The term ``Rio Grande Compact''
means the Rio Grande Compact--
(A) for which Congress provided consent under the Act of
May 31, 1939 (53 Stat. 785, chapter 155); and
(B) that was ratified by the States of Colorado, New
Mexico, and Texas.
(8) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers.
(9) Signatory member.--The term ``signatory member'' means
any Federal, State, or municipal agency, tribe, or public or
private organization that has signed the memorandum of
agreement described in section 4(c)(1)(C).
(10) Silvery minnow.--The term ``silvery minnow'' means the
species Hybognathus amarus, commonly known as the Rio Grande
silvery minnow, a fish listed as an endangered species, as
described in the notice entitled ``Final Rule to List the Rio
Grande Silvery Minnow as an Endangered Species'' (59 Fed.
Reg. 36988 (July 20, 1994)).
(11) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of New
Mexico.
(12) Tribe.--The term ``tribe'' means an Indian pueblo or
tribe that--
(A) occupies land in the Middle Rio Grande; and
(B) is included on the list of federally recognized tribes
published by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with
section 104 of the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act
of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a-1).
(13) Willow flycatcher.--The term ``willow flycatcher''
means the species Empidonax traillii extimus, commonly known
as the southwestern willow flycatcher, a migratory bird
listed as an endangered species, as described in the notice
entitled ``Final Rule Determining Endangered Status for the
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher'' (60 Fed. Reg. 10694
(February 27, 1995)).
SEC. 3. COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary, in collaboration with
the Secretary of the Interior, shall establish the Middle Rio
Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program in accordance
with section 4.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of the Collaborative Program
shall be--
(1) to carry out a long-term plan, including projects to
protect, and promote recovery of, the silvery minnow and
willow flycatcher in the Middle Rio Grande;
(2) to ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) while maintaining water use in
the Middle Rio Grande in compliance with applicable law;
(3) to support improved water management;
(4) to allow continued water development;
(5) to benefit overall ecological integrity;
(6) to promote cooperation and collaboration in
implementation of protection and recovery activities between
Federal and non-Federal entities;
(7) to coordinate Federal actions that promote protection
and recovery of the silvery minnow and willow flycatcher; and
(8) to establish a scientific basis for implementation of
activities through recovery plans to ensure protection and
recovery of the silvery minnow and willow flycatcher.
SEC. 4. COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM STRUCTURE.
(a) Repeal.--Section 209 of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-137; 117
Stat. 1850) is repealed.
(b) Establishment.--The Collaborative Program shall consist
of an Executive Committee, a Program Implementation Team, and
working groups.
(c) Executive Committee.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, in collaboration with the
Secretary of the Interior shall--
(A) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, establish an Executive Committee consisting of
Federal and non-Federal entities described in paragraph (2)
to--
(i) provide guidance to the Program Implementation Team to
develop and approve a long-term plan to carry out the
purposes of the Collaborative Program;
(ii) coordinate Collaborative Program projects for the
recovery of the silvery minnow and the willow flycatcher with
other Federal and non-Federal activities in the Middle Rio
Grande to achieve the greatest effect and limit unnecessary
duplication of efforts to the maximum extent practicable;
(iii) create, assign, and oversee tasks of the Program
Implementation Team and working groups as necessary to
implement a long-term plan and otherwise accomplish the
purposes of the Collaborative Program;
(iv) develop multiyear budget priorities and present
funding requests to the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of
Reclamation, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
other Federal agencies, and non-Federal entities; and
(v) review work products undertaken by the Collaborative
Program, including development of plans, budgets, reports,
and requests for proposals;
(B) consider decisions made by \3/4\ of a quorum as the
recommendation to be carried out under the Collaborative
Program;
(C) develop, consistent with this Act, a memorandum of
agreement describing--
(i) the goals of the Collaborative Program;
(ii) the responsibilities of the participants to contribute
to the success of the Collaborative Program; and
(iii) the administrative rules, bylaws, and agreements
governing Collaborative Program participation; and
(D) in cooperation with the members of the Executive
Committee, develop bylaws governing the operations of the
Executive Committee.
(2) Membership.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the Executive
Committee shall be composed of--
(i) 1 permanent voting member representing the Bureau of
Reclamation, appointed by the Secretary of the Interior;
(ii) 1 permanent voting member representing the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, appointed by the Secretary
of the Interior;
(iii) 1 permanent voting member representing the Corps of
Engineers, appointed by the Secretary;
(iv) upon invitation by the Secretary, other voting members
who have signed the memorandum of agreement described in
paragraph (1)(C), representing any of--
(I) the State of New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission;
(II) the State of New Mexico Department of Game and Fish;
(III) the New Mexico Attorney General;
(IV) the Pueblo of Santo Domingo;
(V) the Pueblo of Sandia;
(VI) the Pueblo of Isleta;
(VII) the Pueblo of Santa Ana;
(VIII) the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District;
(IX) the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Water Authority;
(X) an organization that represents a significant portion
of the environmental community; and
(XI) an organization that represents a significant portion
of the farming community; and
(v) the non-Federal cochairperson elected under paragraph
(4); and
(vi) upon unanimous recommendation of the existing members,
members representing any additional organizations that sign
the memorandum of agreement described in paragraph (1)(C).
(B) Membership cap.--The total membership of the Executive
Committee shall not exceed 20 members.
(C) Quorum.--
(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), \2/3\
of the members of the Executive Committee shall constitute a
quorum.
(ii) Exception.--For purposes of subparagraphs (A) and (C)
of paragraph (4), \2/3\ of the non-Federal members of the
Executive Committee shall constitute a quorum.
(3) Federal cochairperson.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior shall select
a Federal Cochairperson
[[Page S9301]]
from the Department of the Interior who shall--
(i) be a nonvoting member of the Executive Committee;
(ii) convene the Executive Committee;
(iii) develop committee agendas;
(iv) call meetings;
(v) schedule votes and other decisionmaking processes; and
(vi) hold the Program Implementation Team accountable for
assignments received from the Executive Committee.
(B) Removal.--The Federal Cochairperson may be replaced by
the Secretary on a vote of no-confidence by \3/4\ of a
quorum.
(4) Non-federal cochairperson.--
(A) In general.--A non-Federal Chairperson of the Executive
Committee shall be elected on approval by \3/4\ of a quorum.
(B) Duties.--The non-Federal Chairperson shall--
(i) be a voting member of the Executive Committee;
(ii) establish the Executive Committee agenda jointly with
the Federal Cochairperson; and
(iii) lead meetings in the absence of the Federal
Cochairperson.
(C) Removal.--
(i) In general.--The non-Federal Cochairperson may be
removed by the Secretary on a vote of no-confidence by \3/4\
of a quorum.
(ii) Vacancy.--If the non-Federal Chairperson is removed
under clause (i), the vacancy shall be filled in accordance
with subparagraph (A).
(d) Program Implementation Team.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a Program
Implementation Team--
(A) administered by a program manager from the Corps of
Engineers; and
(B) supported by 1 representative of each entity with
membership on the Executive Committee that elects to provide
a representative.
(2) Additional staff.--To support the goals of the
Collaborative Program, the Secretary of the Interior shall
provide staff for the Program Implementation Team from--
(A) the Bureau of Reclamation;
(B) the Bureau of Indian Affairs;
(C) the United States Fish and Wildlife Service; or
(D) any other appropriate agency of the Department of the
Interior.
(3) Duties.--Under the direction of the Executive
Committee, the Program Implementation Team shall--
(A) provide administrative support for all Collaborative
Program operations;
(B) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act, prepare a long-term plan to carry out the purposes
of the Collaborative Program;
(C) consistent with the long-term plan, prepare annual
revisions, annual work plans, budget requests, and activity
and fiscal reports;
(D) provide information to the public concerning activities
of the Collaborative Program and undertake community
outreach;
(E) collaborate with other efforts relating to the
protection and recovery of the silvery minnow and willow
flycatcher carried out under other Federal programs and non-
Federal programs, including--
(i) silvery minnow and willow flycatcher recovery teams
under the direction of the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service;
(ii) Bosque and ecosystem recovery programs under the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service and Corps of
Engineers; and
(iii) other related programs;
(F) administer project proposal processes;
(G) administer contracts and grants, except for those
contracts and grants assigned to the Bureau of Reclamation;
(H) ensure that all activities undertaken by the
Collaborative Program comply with applicable laws; and
(I) undertake such other duties as are assigned by the
Executive Committee and necessary to carry out the
Collaborative Program.
(e) Working Groups.--
(1) In general.--The Executive Committee may create working
groups to--
(A) provide advice to the Executive Committee and the
Program Implementation Team; and
(B) implement tasks consistent with the purposes described
in section 3(b).
(2) Membership.--Working groups established under paragraph
(1) may consist of--
(A) members of the Program Implementation Team; and
(B) individuals appointed by, and under the direction of,
the Program Implementation Team, including--
(i) representatives appointed by the Executive Committee;
(ii) signatory members; or
(iii) individuals contracted by the Program Implementation
Team.
SEC. 5. COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM ACTIVITIES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary and the Secretary of the
Interior may--
(1) enter into any grants, contracts, cooperative
agreements, interagency agreements, or other agreements that
the Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior determine to
be necessary to carry out the Collaborative Program,
including interagency agreements to transfer funds between
agencies within the jurisdiction of the Secretary and the
Secretary of the Interior; and
(2) accept or provide grants to carry out the Collaborative
Program.
(b) Responsibilities.--In carrying out the purposes of the
Collaborative Program--
(1) the Commissioner of Reclamation may--
(A) carry out flow requirements to comply with the
Biological Opinion described in section 205(b) of the Energy
and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law
108-447; 118 Stat. 2949) or any modifications to the
Biological Opinion and other projects relating to water
management, including--
(i) acquiring interests in land and water to meet minimum
flow requirements;
(ii) monitoring and gaging flows;
(iii) pumping from the Low Flow Conveyance Channel and
other drains and channels to support silvery minnow and
willow flycatcher habitat; and
(iv) improving monitoring and gaging;
(B) consult with the signatory members regarding
opportunities and methods to accomplish the responsibilities;
(C) coordinate implementation of all other activities
carried out within the Middle Rio Grande under the
jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation with the activities
of the Collaborative Program to achieve the purposes of the
Collaborative Program; and
(D) construct fish passages at San Acacia Diversion Dam and
at Isleta Diversion Dam;
(2) the Secretary of the Army--
(A) may carry out and fund additional projects not
designated to the Commissioner of Reclamation under paragraph
(1), including--
(i) actions to induce overbank flooding and creation of
backwaters;
(ii) salvaging eggs;
(iii) improving monitoring and gaging;
(iv) performing habitat and ecosystem restoration;
(v) regeneration of native vegetation and monitoring of
associated water depletions;
(vi) reconstructing a new San Marcial Railroad bridge and
realignment of the river channel;
(vii) developing ways to--
(I) increase sediment transport through Jemez Canyon Dam,
Galisteo Dam, and Cochiti Lake; and
(II) address issues of contaminated sediment;
(viii) preventing salt cedar encroachment in Angostura,
Isleta and San Acacia reaches;
(ix) implementing captive propagation of silvery minnow,
including expansion of facilities;
(x) creating at least 2 new naturalized refugia, 1 of which
shall be carried out in partnership with the Bureau of
Reclamation, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and
Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District without direct
oversight by the Collaborative Program, under the Silvery
Minnow Off-Channel Sanctuaries Program as authorized under
section 6014 of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief,
2005 (Public Law 109-13; 119 Stat. 283);
(xi) monitoring silvery minnow protection and recovery
efforts by conducting surveys of populations and habitat
above Cochiti Lake;
(xii) developing comprehensive water quality assessments
and managing changes in water quality;
(xiii) conducting studies and research necessary to define
the needs of listed species; and
(xiv) monitoring the effects of activities on listed
species;
(B) shall implement the decisions of the Executive
Committee in performing the activities described in
subparagraph (A); and
(C) shall coordinate implementation of all other activities
carried out within the Middle Rio Grande by the Corps of
Engineers with the activities of the Collaborative Program in
order to achieve the purposes of the Collaborative Program.
(c) Limitations.--
(1) Acquisition of land or water.--In carrying out this
Act, the Secretary or the Secretary of the Interior may only
acquire interests in land and water.
(2) Water rights.--Nothing in this Act preempts or affects
State water law or an interstate compact governing water.
(3) Compliance.--All actions carried out in accordance with
this Act shall be in compliance with applicable State,
Federal, or tribal law.
(4) Rio grande compact.--No action carried out under this
Act shall impair the ability of the State to meet the
obligations of the State under the Rio Grande compact.
(5) State law.--The Secretary and the Secretary of the
Interior shall carry out activities under the Collaborative
Program consistent with State law.
(6) Consultation.--
(A) In general.--Consultations between governments under
this Act shall be carried out between the Secretary or the
Secretary of the Interior and tribes prior to initiating
actions that would impact tribal land or water rights.
(B) Consent requirement.--No action involving access to, or
use of, pueblo or tribal land may be carried out without
prior written consent of the affected pueblo or Indian tribe.
(7) Collaboration.--In carrying out this Act, the Secretary
and the Secretary of Interior may collaborate with or enter
into contracts, cooperative agreements, interagency
agreements, or other agreements with, or accept or provide
grants to, tribes that--
(A) are signatory members; but
(B) are not represented on the Executive Committee.
[[Page S9302]]
(8) No effect on certain authority.--Nothing in this Act
diminishes the authority, sovereignty, or rights of any
person, organization, tribe, or other governmental entity.
(9) No effect on certain duties.--
(A) In general.--Nothing in this Act diminishes or
impairs--
(i) the trust relationship or responsibility of the Federal
Government to any tribe;
(ii) the obligation of the Federal Government to consult
with the tribes on a government-to-government basis; or
(iii) the ability of the Federal Government to fund
activities for the benefit of the tribes.
(B) Funding.--Nothing in this Act restricts the Secretary
or the Secretary of the Interior from funding activities in
accordance with the Indian trust responsibility of the
Federal Government.
(10) No effect on reservoir operations.--While this Act
provides additional authorization for the Secretary and the
Secretary of the Interior, nothing expands the discretion of
the Secretary or the Secretary of the Interior with respect
to operating reservoir facilities under the jurisdiction of
the Secretary or the Secretary of the Interior in the Middle
Rio Grande.
SEC. 6. REPORTING.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the Secretary and the
Secretary of the Interior shall submit to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works and the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on
Resources of the House of Representatives a report that--
(1) describes expenditure of appropriated funds and cost-
share contributions;
(2) describes activities carried out under this Act; and
(3) describes compliance with the purposes of this Act.
SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
the Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior such sums as
are necessary to carry out this Act for each of fiscal years
2006 through 2015.
(2) Nonreiumbursable.--Amounts made available pursuant to
paragraph (1) shall be considered nonreimbursable Federal
expenditures.
(b) Cost Allocation.--
(1) Activities at full federal expense.--
(A) Water acquisition.--Water acquisition and the cost of
administration for water acquisition and water management by
the Bureau of Reclamation described in section 5(b)(1) shall
be carried out at full Federal expense.
(B) Administration.--Administration of the Collaborative
Program, as described in section 4(d), including the
participation of Federal agencies in the Program
Implementation Team, shall be carried out at full Federal
expense.
(2) Cost-share.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), all projects
or activities of the Collaborative Program not described in
paragraph (1) that are carried out by the Secretary or the
Secretary of the Interior shall require a non-Federal cost-
share of 25 percent.
(B) Limitation.--
(i) In general.--The total non-Federal share required under
subparagraph (A) for all projects during the period of fiscal
years 2006 through 2015 shall be not more than $30,000,000.
(ii) Federal expense.--On satisfaction of the total non-
Federal share described in clause (i)--
(I) no further non-Federal share shall be required; and
(II) all projects and activities shall be carried out at
full Federal expense.
(C) Contributions.--The cost-share under subparagraph (A)
may be provided as--
(i) in-kind contributions, including participation on the
Program Implementation Team or in working groups, the value
of which shall be determined by Secretary; or
(ii) direct cash contributions.
(D) Programmatic basis.--The amount of the Federal and non-
Federal cost-shares shall be determined on--
(i) a programmatic, rather than project-by-project, basis;
and
(ii) a 3-year interval with excess non-Federal cost-share
being credited to subsequent accounting periods.
(c) Administrative Costs.--Not more than 15 percent of
amounts made available under subsection (a) shall be used to
pay the administrative costs of carrying out the Program
Implementation Team established under section 4(d).
______
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr.
Levin):
S. 1541. A bill to protect, conserve, and restore public land
administered by the Department of the Interior or the Forest Service
and adjacent land through cooperative cost-shared grants to control and
mitigate the spread of invasive species, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Public Land
Protection and Conservation Act of 2005. I am pleased to have Senators
Inouye, Lautenberg and Levin join me in cosponsoring the bill. My
legislation encourages Federal, State, and local agencies, nonprofit
organizations, Indian tribes and private entities to work together
through a cost-shared, cooperative grant program to control and
mitigate the spread of invasive species.
Invasive species are defined as harmful, nonnative plants, animals,
or organisms likely to cause economic harm, environmental harm, or harm
to human health. They are widespread throughout the United States and
cause billions of dollars of damage annually to crops, rangelands, and
waterways. The globalization of trade, the massive volume of cargo
shipments, and rising tourism have combined to increase the chance of
introductions of nonnative species into the United States. They are
responsible for damage to native ecosystems and vital industries such
as agriculture, fisheries, and ranching. The economic, social,
recreational, and ecological losses attributable to invasive species
are huge. A recent Cornell University study estimated that invasive
plants and animals cost the U.S. economy $137 billion annually. The
costs are predicted to increase substantially as more invasive species
enter the country.
The implications of the nationwide invasive species problem are
enormous. The Ecological Society of America notes that invasive species
contribute to the listing of 35 to 46 percent of all threatened and
endangered species. Nowhere, however, are the impacts greater than in
my home State of Hawaii. Hawaii is known for its biodiversity. Hawaii
has more than 10,000 species found nowhere else on Earth.
Unfortunately, invasive species are the number one cause of the decline
of Hawaii's threatened and endangered species. This is a serious
concern because of the 114 endangered species that have become extinct
during the first 20 years of the Endangered Species Act, almost half
were in Hawaii. Recently, gall wasps were found laying eggs in wiliwili
trees. These trees were once a dominant species in dry Hawaiian
forests. Now they are nearly 90 percent gone with the remnants of the
remaining trees, primarily found on Maui and the Big Island, threatened
by the invasive gall wasp. The fragility of our native species is
compounded by the fact that most introduced species have no natural
predators in the State, and such predators cannot simply cross a State
border to enter Hawaii. Hawaii's Invasive Species Partnerships, a group
comprised of a state council and island-based committees stated in its
2004 report that ``the silent invasion of Hawaii by alien invasive
species is the single greatest threat to Hawaii's economy, natural
environment, and the health and lifestyle of Hawaii's people and
visitors.'' Hawaii is plagued with pest invasions to a greater extent
than almost any other location in the world. The invasion has limited
our agricultural export market, decreased bio-diversity in the forests,
and decimated native bird populations. It is imperative that this
serious issue receive our full attention.
Let me give you just a few examples of invasive species problems in
Hawaii. Control efforts for the Formosan ground termite are estimated
to cost residents in Hawaii more than $150 million per year. Damage to
our agricultural industry and the related control costs of the
Mediterranean fruit fly are more than $450 million annually. Miconia,
an invasive tree infesting more than 15,000 acres of rainforest in
Hawaii, eliminates the habitat of endangered plants and animals and
causes serious erosion problems that threaten our water supply. Bush
Beardgrass is a drought-tolerant grass that increases the risk of
brushfires. Wildlife authorities say the grass is beyond control on
Kauai and the Big Island. Native birds in our rainforests are
succumbing to malaria spread through introduced mosquitos. Coqui frogs
can reach densities of 8,000 frogs per acre and threaten Hawaii's real
estate, export floriculture, and nursery industries. The brown tree
snake has invaded Guam and devastated native bird populations there. If
the snakes become established in Hawaii, economic costs have been
estimated to exceed hundreds of millions of dollars. Red fire ants
threaten the agriculture industry in Hawaii and in 14 Southern States,
causing more than $2 billion in annual damage. As you can see, the list
[[Page S9303]]
of problems is long and the time to address the issue of invasive
species is now, before even more serious problems crop up.
With 73 percent of land in the continental U.S. held privately, our
Federal lands will not be adequately protected without public-private
partnerships. My bill requires coordination between the National
Invasive Species Council, the Department of the Interior, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, and State invasive species councils and
plans. The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide
grants to promote the development of voluntary State assessments to
establish inventories and priorities for controlling invasive species.
This is a critical step in establishing an invasives program, but many
States do not have the resources to carry out this critical assessment.
The legislation also provides additional grants to public or private
entities, or Indian tribes, to carry out in partnership with a Federal
agency an eradication, containment, or management project on Federal
land or adjacent land. Control grants are cost-shared with partners.
The criteria for ranking control projects include shared priorities in
State and Federal plans, the severity of the invasive species impact on
a State, and whether the project fosters results through public-private
partnerships. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the bill provides
rapid response funds for States facing new outbreaks of invasive
species, to eradicate serious new outbreaks. Rapid response funds are
critical to States in order to combat newly identified invasives.
I was pleased to see that Federal departments would receive an
overall increase for the seven invasive species general categories in
the President's fiscal year 2006 proposed budget. I appreciate the
consideration that my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee have
given this important issue. However, I was dismayed to see that the
budget for the category of control of invasive species declined by $25
million from its fiscal year 2005 enacted level. Control is an
essential element in combating invasive species and requires additional
funding.
I would like to acknowledge the fine work being accomplished by the
National Park Service in establishing its Exotic Plant Management
Teams. These Teams are designed to provide a highly trained, mobile
strike force of plant management specialists to assist parks in the
control of exotic plants. Approximately 2.6 million acres in the
national parks are infected and 234 parks have invasive animals in need
of management. To date, 17 Teams have been deployed throughout the
country. I am grateful to the Pacific Island Team for its efforts to
protect increasingly rare native communities in the Hawaiian Islands
from invasion. Control of exotic species is one of the most significant
land management issues facing national parks. Although I applaud the
current efforts of the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest
Service, a more coordinated and forceful attack on invasive species is
needed. The attack must have robust funding and work in partnership
with the States.
I am particularly pleased that the State of Hawaii is taking a
leadership role in addressing its invasive species problems. Two years
ago the Hawaii State Legislature established the Hawaii Invasive
Species Council to coordinate the State's fight against animal and
plant invaders, with the Department of Agriculture and the Department
of Land and Natural Resources in leading roles. The Hawaii State
Legislature has directed approximately $8 million to the invasives
campaign so far. The Hawaii Invasive Species Council and each county
council are committed to a proactive approach to preserve the
environmental heritage and economic security of our communities for
generations to come. In addition, many public and private partnerships
have been formed to protect our common natural resources. For example,
the East Maui Watershed Partnership brings together multiple public and
private landowners and the County of Maui to control invasive species
and protect 100,000 acres of our prime watershed areas. This is just
one example of many highly successful and dedicated partnerships in
Hawaii working to preserve our invaluable resources.
The National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species, a coalition
of representatives from major environmental organizations, has extended
its full support for this legislation. Its letter of support calls this
bill ``one of the best legislative proposals to date to deal with the
growing threat that invasive species pose to our nation's ecological
and economic health.'' The State of Hawaii, Department of Land and
Natural Resources, also supports the bill. The Department acknowledges
that success in invasive species projects in Hawaii have come largely
from the formation of strong partnerships between State, County and
Federal agencies and private groups -exactly what my legislation
endorses. My bill is also supported by the Conservation Council of
Hawaii, the National Wildlife Federation affiliate in Hawaii. I greatly
appreciate these endorsements.
As Federal efforts to combat the growing tide of invasive species
increase, some landowners and private property advocates are concerned
that increased efforts to combat invasives and support native plants
and animals could lead to the next big government invasion of private
lands. Let me assure you this is not a property rights issue. Any
action taken by governments or nonprofits through this bill can occur
only with the participation and willingness of the property owner.
There are increasingly severe problems and economic burdens
associated with invasive species in our Nation that are borne at the
State and local levels. If ever there was a time to commit to defending
the security of our domestic resources for the future, it is now. My
legislation provides the support necessary for agencies, organizations,
and individuals to implement cooperative projects to address new
threats and long-standing invasive species problems. This is an issue
that must be confronted.
I ask unanimous consent that text of the bill be printed in the
Record, as well as the letters of support from Hawaii and national
groups, and urge my colleagues to support my legislation.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 1541
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Public Land Protection and
Conservation Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to encourage partnerships among
Federal, State, and local agencies, nongovernmental entities,
and Indian tribes to protect, enhance, restore, and manage
public land and adjacent land through the control of invasive
species by--
(1) promoting the development of voluntary State
assessments to establish priorities for controlling invasive
species;
(2) promoting greater cooperation among Federal, State, and
local land and water managers and owners of private land or
other interests to implement strategies to control and
mitigate the spread of invasive species through a voluntary
and incentive-based financial assistance grant program;
(3) establishing a rapid response capability to combat
incipient invasive species invasions; and
(4) modifying the requirements applicable to the National
Invasive Species Council.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Control.--The term ``control'' means--
(A) eradicating, suppressing, reducing, or managing
invasive species in areas in which the species are present;
(B) taking steps to detect early infestations of invasive
species on Public land and adjacent land that is at risk of
being infested; and
(C) restoring native ecosystems to reverse or reduce the
impacts of invasive species.
(2) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the National
Invasive Species Council established by section 3 of
Executive Order No. 13112 (64 Fed. Reg. 6184).
(3) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the
meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
(4) Invasive species.--The term ``invasive species'' means,
with respect to a particular ecosystem, any animal, plant, or
other organism (including biological material of the animal,
plant, or other organism that is capable of propagating the
species)--
(A) that is not native to the ecosystem; and
(B) the introduction of which causes or is likely to cause
economic harm, environmental harm, or harm to human health.
(5) National management plan.--The term ``National
Management Plan'' means the management plan referred to in
section 5 of Executive Order No. 13112 (64 Fed. Reg. 6185)
and entitled ``Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge''.
[[Page S9304]]
(6) Public land.--The term ``Public land'' means all land
and water that is--
(A) owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the United
States; and
(B) administered by the Department of the Interior or the
Forest Service.
(7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(8) State.--The term ``State'' means--
(A) a State of the United States;
(B) the District of Columbia;
(C) the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the Northern
Mariana Islands;
(D) the Territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin
Islands;
(E) the Federated States of Micronesia;
(F) the Republic of the Marshall Islands; and
(G) the Republic of Palau.
SEC. 4. NATIVE HERITAGE ASSESSMENT AND CONTROL GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) Assessment Grants.--The Secretary may provide to a
State a grant to carry out an assessment project consistent
with relevant invasive species management plans of the State
to--
(1) identify invasive species that occur in the State;
(2) survey the extent of invasive species in the State;
(3) assess the needs to restore, manage, or enhance native
ecosystems in the State;
(4) identify priorities for actions to address those needs;
(5) incorporate, as applicable, the guidelines of the
National Management Plan; and
(6) identify methods to--
(A) control or detect incipient infestations of invasive
species in the State; or
(B) control or assess established populations of invasive
species in the State.
(b) Control Grants.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may provide grants to
appropriate public or private entities and Indian tribes to
carry out, in partnership with a Federal agency, control
projects for the management or eradication of invasive
species on Public land or adjacent land that--
(A) include plans for--
(i) monitoring the project areas; and
(ii) maintaining effective control of invasive species
after the completion of the projects, including through the
conduct of restoration activities;
(B) in the case of a project on adjacent land, are carried
out with the consent of the owner of the adjacent land; and
(C) provide public notice to, and conduct outreach
activities relating to the control projects in, communities
in which control projects are carried out.
(2) Priority.--In prioritizing grants for control projects,
the Secretary shall consider--
(A) the extent to which a project would address--
(i) the priorities of a State for invasive species control;
and
(ii) the priorities for invasive species management on
Public land, such as the priorities for management on
National Park System and National Forest System land;
(B) the estimated number of, or extent of infestation by,
invasive species in the State;
(C) whether a project would encourage increased
coordination and cooperation among 1 or more Federal agencies
and State or local government agencies to control invasive
species;
(D) whether a project--
(i) fosters public-private partnerships; and
(ii) uses Federal resources to encourage increased private
sector involvement, including the provision of private funds
or in-kind contributions;
(E) the extent to which a project would aid the
conservation of species included on Federal or State lists of
threatened or endangered species;
(F) whether a project includes pilot testing or a
demonstration of an innovative technology that has the
potential to improve the cost-effectiveness of controlling
invasive species; and
(G) the extent to which a project--
(i) considers the potential for unintended consequences of
control methods on native species; and
(ii) includes contingency measures to address the
unintended consequences.
(c) Duties of the Secretary.--The Secretary shall--
(1) not later than 180 days after the date on which funds
are made available to carry out this Act, publish guidelines
and solicit applications for grants under this section;
(2) not later than 1 year after the date on which funds are
made available to carry out this Act, evaluate and approve or
disapprove applications for grants submitted under this
section;
(3) consult with the Council on--
(A) any projects proposed for grants under this section,
including the priority of proposed projects for the grants;
and
(B) providing a definition of the term ``adjacent land''
for purposes of the control grant program under subsection
(b);
(4) consult with the advisory committee established under
section 3(b) of Executive Order No. 13112 (64 Fed. Reg. 6184)
on projects proposed for a grant under this section,
including the scientific merit, technical merit, and
feasibility of a proposed project; and
(5) if a project is conducted on National Forest System
land, consult with the Secretary of Agriculture.
(d) Grant Duration.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a
grant under this section shall provide funding for the
Federal share of the cost of a project for not more than 2
fiscal years.
(2) Renewal of control projects.--
(A) In general.--If the Secretary, after reviewing the
reports submitted under subsection (f) with respect to a
control project, finds that the project is making
satisfactory progress, the Secretary may renew a grant under
this section for an additional 3 fiscal years.
(B) Implementation of monitoring and maintenance plan.--The
Secretary may renew a grant under this section to implement
the monitoring and maintenance plan required for a control
project under subsection (b) for not more than 10 years after
the project is otherwise complete.
(e) Distribution of Control Grant Awards.--In making grants
for control projects under subsection (b), the Secretary
shall, to the maximum extent practicable, ensure that--
(1) at least 50 percent of control project funds are spent
on land adjacent to Public land; and
(2) there is a balance of smaller and larger control
projects conducted with grants under that subsection.
(f) Reporting by Grant Recipient.--
(1) Assessment projects.--Not later than 2 years after the
date on which a grant is provided under subsection (a), a
grant recipient carrying out an assessment project shall
submit to the Secretary and the Governor of the State in
which the assessment project is carried out a report on the
assessment project.
(2) Control projects.--A grant recipient carrying out a
control project under subsection (b) shall submit to the
Secretary--
(A) an annual synopsis of the control project; and
(B) a report on the control project not later than the
earlier of--
(i) at least once every 2 years; or
(ii) the date on which the grant expires.
(3) Contents.--A report submitted under this subsection
shall include--
(A) a detailed accounting of--
(i) the funding made available for the project; and
(ii) any expenditures made for the project; and
(B) with respect to a control project--
(i) a chronological list of any progress made with respect
to the project;
(ii) specific information on the methods and techniques
used to control invasive species in the project area;
(iii) trends in the population size and distribution of
invasive species in the project area; and
(iv) the number of acres of the native ecosystem protected
or restored.
(g) Cost-Sharing Requirement.--
(1) Projects on adjacent land.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the Federal share of the cost of a control project carried
out on adjacent land shall be not more than 75 percent.
(B) Certain control projects.--The Federal share of a
control project carried out on adjacent land that uses pilot
testing, demonstrates an innovative technology, or provides
for the conservation of threatened or endangered species
shall be 85 percent.
(2) Projects on public land.--The Federal share of the cost
of the portion of a control project that is carried out on
Public land shall be 100 percent.
(3) Application of in-kind contributions.--The Secretary
may apply to the non-Federal share of the costs of a control
project the fair market value of services or any other form
of in-kind contribution to the project made by a non-Federal
entity.
(4) Derivation of non-federal share.--The non-Federal share
of the cost of a control project carried out with a grant
under this section may not be derived from a Federal grant
program or other Federal funds.
(h) Reporting by Secretary.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this Act and every 2 years thereafter, the
Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that--
(A) describes the implementation of this section; and
(B) includes a determination whether the grants authorized
under subsections (a) and (b) should be expanded to land and
water that are owned and administered by Federal agencies
other than the Department of the Interior or the Forest
Service.
(2) Contents.--A report under paragraph (1) shall include a
review of control projects, including--
(A) a list of control projects selected, in progress, and
completed;
(B) an assessment of project impacts, including--
(i) areas treated; and
(ii)(I) if feasible, a measurement of invasive species
eradicated; or
(II) an estimate of the extent to which invasive species
have been reduced or contained;
(C) the success and failure of control techniques used;
(D) an accounting of expenditures by Federal, State,
regional, and local government agencies and other entities to
carry out the projects;
(E) a review of efforts made to maintain an appropriate
database of projects assisted under this section; and
(F) a review of the geographical distribution of Federal
funds, matching funds, and in-kind contributions provided for
projects.
[[Page S9305]]
SEC. 5. RAPID RESPONSE ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may provide financial
assistance to States, local governments, public or private
entities, and Indian tribes for a period of 1 fiscal year to
enable States, local governments, nongovernmental entities,
and Indian tribes to rapidly respond to outbreaks of invasive
species that are at a stage at which rapid eradication or
control is possible.
(b) Requirements for Assistance.--The Secretary shall--
(1) at the request of the Governor of a State--
(A) provide assistance under this section to the State, a
local government, public or private entity, or Indian tribe
for the eradication of an immediate invasive species threat
in the State if--
(i) there is a demonstrated need for the assistance;
(ii) the invasive species is considered to be an immediate
threat to native ecosystems, human health, or the economy, as
determined by the Secretary; and
(iii) the proposed response of the State, local government,
public or private entity, or Indian tribe to the threat--
(I) is technically feasible; and
(II) minimizes adverse impacts to native ecosystems and
non-target species; or
(B) if the requirements under subparagraph (A) are not met,
submit to the Governor of the State, not later than 30 days
after the date on which the Secretary received the request,
written notice that the State is not eligible for assistance
under this section;
(2) determine the amount of financial assistance to be
provided under this section, subject to the availability of
appropriations, with respect to an outbreak of an invasive
species;
(3) require that entities receiving assistance under this
section monitor and report on activities carried out with
such assistance in the same manner that control project grant
recipients monitor and report on such activities; and
(4) expedite environmental and regulatory reviews to ensure
that an outbreak of invasive species can be addressed within
the 180-day period beginning on the date on which the State
notifies the Secretary of the outbreak.
SEC. 6. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER AUTHORITIES.
Nothing in this Act affects authorities, responsibilities,
obligations, or powers of the Secretary under any other
statute.
SEC. 7. BUDGET CROSSCUT.
Not later than March 31, 2006, and each year thereafter,
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in
consultation with the Council, shall submit to Congress--
(1) a comprehensive budget analysis and summary of Federal
programs relating to invasive species; and
(2) a list of general priorities, ranked in high, medium,
and low categories, of Federal efforts and programs in--
(A) prevention;
(B) early detection and rapid response;
(C) eradication, control, management, and restoration;
(D) research and monitoring;
(E) information management; and
(F) public outreach and partnership efforts.
SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Assessment Grants.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary to carry out assessment
projects under section 4(a)--
(1) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
(2) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years
2007 through 2010.
(b) Control Grants.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary to carry out control projects
under section 4(b)--
(1) $175,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
(2) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years
2007 through 2010.
(c) Rapid Response Assistance.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary to carry out section 5--
(1) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
(2) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years
2007 through 2010.
(d) Continuing Availability.--Amounts made available under
this section shall remain available until expended.
(e) Administrative Expenses of Secretary.--Of amounts made
available each fiscal year to carry out this Act, the
Secretary may expend not more than 5 percent to pay the
administrative expenses necessary to carry out this Act.
____
The National Environmental
Coalition on Invasive Species,
July 22, 2005.
Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Akaka: The member organizations of the
National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species are
writing in support of the Pubic Land Protection and
Conservation Act of 2005.
Separately, our individual organizations have protested
millions of acres of land; worked with thousands of corporate
partners, affiliates, and community groups; and provided
scientific, economic, and legal analyses that advocate
responsible policy solutions to the international, national,
and local level.
Together, our organizations have over six million
individual members and supporters. The threat that invasive
species pose to our environment and economy and our interest
in finding equitable, practical, and cost-effective solutions
to this environmental problem unites us in this Coalition.
Invasive species that choke out, devour, and destroy native
wildlife and their habitat have infested more than 100
million acres of the American landscape. An additional three
million acres are lost each year to invasive weeds--an area
equal to a strip of land two miles wide stretching from coast
to coat. Invasive species are one of the most critical
threats to America's natural diversity and pose clear risks
to the nation's waters, forests, farmlands, rangelands,
wetlands, natural area, and public and private property
values. Experts estimates that these fast moving invaders are
already causing $130 billion of damage each year to the
economy.
The Public Land Protection and Conservation Act of 2005 is
one of the best legislative proposals to date to deal with
the growing threat that invasive species pose to our nation's
ecological and economic health. We applaud this effort to use
federal funding as an incentive to encourage local government
agencies, private organizations, and individuals to be more
proactive in managing invasive and invading species. The
Native Heritage Control Grant Program offered in the bill is
noteworthy not only in that it provides such incentives, but
also in that it provides additional encouragement for
innovative technologies and work to benefit endangered
species. The Control Grant Program is aptly tailored to
encourage partnerships and work on federal and non-federal
land. Invasive species do not respect administrative or
political boundaries and we cannot hope to protect the best
federal lands without the cooperation of neighboring
landowners. Similarly helping private landowners and local
governments deal with their invasive species problems is also
extremely important, as recognized in this bill.
The Public Land Protection and Conservation Act of 2005
reflects some of the latest scientific conclusions on
invasive species--we strongly support your esblishment of
`rapid response' funding to deal with incipient invasions.
There is broad consensus among organizations, scientists, and
state and federal agencies that eradicating invaders before
they become widely established is second only to prevention
as the most cost-effective and ultimately successful way to
stop invasions. This rapid response program will be critical
if the brown tree snake) Boiga irregularis) ever reaches
Hawaii from Guam, if the European green crab (Carcinus
maenas) ever reaches Alaska from California, or countless
other potential invasions occur on our coasts, inland
rangelands, grasslands, wetland, and waterways.
The Public Land Protection and Conservation Act of 2005
contains useful deadlines and guidance to help ensure that
Assessment Grants, Rapid Response Assistance, and Control
Grants are delivered effectively, translating into meaningful
conservation results on the ground. The Coalition strongly
supports the inclusion of this language, which will help get
these programs up and running quickly, and help ensure quick
success against rapidly spreading problems. As this bill
recognizes, it is particularly important for Rapid Response
Assistance to be delivered as quickly as possible after a
state requests such assistance, because time is of the
essence to prevent new invaders from getting a foothold
within a state.
The National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species
supports this proposed legislation as now written. The grant
programs it establishes are sorely needed to address the
widespread damage being caused by invasive species all across
America. We look forward to working with you and your staff
on this legislation that will help address America's dire
invasive species problem.
Sincerely,
Gaby Chavarria, Ph.D,
Vice President for Conservation, Defenders of Wildlife.
Peter T. Jenkins,
Attorney/Policy Analyst, International Center for
Technology Assessment.
Timothy male, Ph.D,
Senior Ecologist, Environemtnal Defense.
Mike Daulton,
Assistant Director, National Audubon Society.
Adam Kolotn,
Director, Congressional & Federal Affairs, National
Wildlife Federation.
Phyllis N. Windle, Ph.D,
Senior Scientist, Union of Concerned Scientists.
John M. Randall,
Director, Invasive Species Initiative, The Nature
Conservancy.
____
June 14, 2004.
Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Akaka: The Conservation Council of Hawaii
commends you for introducing the Public Land Protection and
Conservation Act of 2004. This bill will be instrumental in
preventing the invasion of new invasive species, and help
prevent the spread of invasives that have already taken root
in the United States.
[[Page S9306]]
In Hawaii, we know first hand that invasive species choke
out, devour, and destroy native wildlife and their habitat.
Throughout the nation, invasive species have infested more
than 100 million acres of the American landscape and an
additional three million acres are lost each year to invasive
weeds. Invasive species are one of the most critical threats
to America's natural diversity and pose clear risks to the
nation's waters, forests, farmlands, rangelands, wetlands,
natural areas, and public and private property values.
Experts estimate that these fast moving invaders are already
causing $130 billion of damage each year to the economy and
are the second leading cause, after habitat loss, for
wildlife being listed as threatened and endangered.
The Public Land Protection and Conservation Act of 2004 is
one of the best legislative proposals to date to deal with
the growing threat that invasive species pose to our nation's
ecological and economic health. We applaud this effort to use
federal funding as an incentive to encourage local government
agencies, private organizations, and individuals to be more
proactive in managing invasive and invading species. The
Native Heritage Control Grant Program offered in the bill is
noteworthy not only in that it provides such incentives, but
also in that it provides additional encouragement for
innovative technologies and work to benefit endangered
species. The Control Grant Program is aptly tailored to
encourage partnerships and work on federal and non-federal
land. Invasive species do not respect administrative or
political boundaries and we cannot hope to protect the best
federal lands without the cooperation of neighboring
landowners. Similarly, helping private landowners and local
governments deal with their invasive species problems is also
extremely important, as recognized in this bill.
The Public Land Protection and Conservation Act of 2004
reflects some of the latest scientific conclusions on
invasive species--we strongly support your establishment of
`rapid response' funding to deal with incipient invasions.
There is broad consensus among organizations, scientists, and
state and federal agencies that eradicating invaders before
they become widely established is second only to prevention
as the most cost-effective and ultimately successful way to
stop invasions. This rapid response program will be critical
if the brown tree snake (Boiga irregularis) ever reaches
Hawaii from Guam, if the European green crab (Carcinus
maenas) ever reaches Alaska from California, or countless
other potential invasions occur on our coasts, inland
rangelands, grasslands, wetlands, and waterways.
The Conservation Council of Hawaii strongly supports this
proposed legislation. We look forward to working with you and
your staff on this legislation to ensure its successful
passage.
Sincerely,
Marjorie Ziegler,
President, Conservation Council of Hawaii.
____
State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural
Resources,
Honolulu, HI, April 22, 2004.
Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
Prince Kuhio Federal Building,
Honolulu, HI.
Dear Senator Akaka: I would like to thank you and
acknowledge the State of Hawaii's support for the Public Land
Conservation Act of 2004. We feel this legislation will
achieve its stated purpose of encouraging Federal, State,
local and nongovernmental partnerships to assess and control
invasive species on Federal and adjacent lands.
I believe that Hawaii is the best state model for
developing strategies for federal agencies, not only to work
together more effectively, but also to work in partnership
with state and local government entities. Increasing success
in invasive species projects in Hawaii has come largely from
the formation of strong partnerships between State, County
and Federal agencies and private groups. Just as many
landowners and businesses are affected by the same invasive
species concerns, many agencies are responsible for the
pathways that bring potentially invasive species into Hawaii,
regulate their movement and control their spread.
Partnerships to address invasive species issues have been
responsible for the greatest improvements in Hawaii's ability
to respond to recognized priority pests. In Hawaii, combining
limited resources, authority, and expertise has led to the
creation of Invasive Species Committees that carry out on the
ground actions, the Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species
that has allowed agency staff to develop integrated policies
within the state and most recently the Hawaii Invasive
Species Council composed of State agency heads.
Implementation of current management plans developed by
coordinated efforts of relevant public agencies and affected
local constituents in Hawaii can help build the framework to
begin or enhance larger-scale regional strategies to combat
wide-ranging invasive species. Federal investments to support
local, State, and regional partners who are prepared to take
action now against known priority invasive species will
provide valuable lessons for other regions and promote
innovation and efficiency in protection and public outreach
strategies. By promoting their progress, these partnerships
will in turn help identify the policy and legal obstacles to
success as well as build a constituency for more effective
invasive-species prevention and control programs in other
areas.
Please let me know of any way that we can help support this
important piece of legislation. Mahalo.
Sincerely,
Peter T. Young,
Chairperson
______
By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein):
II S. 1545. A bill to withdraw the Los Padres National Forest in
California from location, entry, and patent under mining laws, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today that
would ban additional oil and gas drilling in the Los Padres National
Forest. My colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, joins me in
this effort. Representative Capps introduced companion legislation in
the House of Representatives earlier this month.
Los Padres National Forest is on California's central coast,
stretching from Monterey County's Big Sur down to Ventura and the
western edge of Los Angeles County. Covering almost 1.75 million acres,
it is California's third-largest national forest and one of the State's
most visited. Los Padres National Forest is an ecological treasure and
a recreational refuge in one of California's, indeed America's, most
densely populated areas.
It provides habitat for 20 threatened and endangered wildlife
species, including the spectacular California condor. Los Padres also
contains unexplored archaeological sites that contain Native American
historical artifacts.
Yet, despite these facts and strong local opposition to oil and gas
drilling in the Forest, the Forest Service announced today that it will
open up more than 52,000 acres of land to oil and gas drilling in Los
Padres National Forest. While this is far less land than the Forest
Service previously considered opening, additional drilling is simply
unacceptable. That is why I am introducing legislation to prevent this
new drilling, and any future drilling from occurring in Los Padres
National Forest.
Additional oil and gas drilling will threaten the pristine and
unspoiled lands in the Forest. It could damage or destroy Native
American artifacts. And, it could ruin recreational opportunities by
contaminating streams and increasing air pollution.
My legislation is a critical step toward protecting the irreplaceable
natural, cultural, and recreational resources of the Los Padres
National Forest. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
______
By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Stevens):
S. 1548. A bill to provide for the conveyance of certain Forest
Service land to the city of Coffman Cove, Alaska; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill that is very
important to a small community in my home State of Alaska. This bill
will authorize the U.S. Forest Service to convey approximately 12 acres
of land, which it no longer needs but continues to own in Coffman Cove,
AK to the city of Coffman Cove. The bill authorizes that the land, a
former administrative site, be conveyed without charge to the city
which has a population of about 230 people.
Coffman Cove was founded in 1965 as a logging community to provide
support for the timber industry on Prince of Wales Island in the
Tongass National Forest. It operated for almost 35 years in that
capacity. Due to changes in Federal policy, the timber industry on the
island no longer provides the economic base necessary to sustain
Coffman Cove. Attempts at economic diversification are very difficult
so long as the Forest Service holds in Federal ownership these 12 acres
which literally occupy the center of this small community.
Just a few years ago, the Forest Service in conjunction with the
timber industry completed the environmental cleanup of the logging site
and facility at Coffman Cove. That cleanup was funded by the timber
industry as good corporate citizens. The result of the cleanup is that
the 12 acres can now be made available for disposal to the city.
This bill, in which I am joined by my colleague Mr. Stevens, would
convey title to the City without cost so that it
[[Page S9307]]
can begin a redevelopment plan for the community. The city of Coffman
Cove needs this land if it is to hope to reorient its economy from a
principally logging community to a more diversified economic community.
A small town of 230 people simply does not have the funds to purchase
this land and the Federal Government needs to pitch in by conveying
full title without cost to the community.
This is only fair since the Federal Government's change in timber
policy has created the city's dilemma. As a result of the change in
timber policy with which the Senate is so familiar, the city has been
set adrift to fend for itself economically. And it has done a good job.
It will soon become the southern terminus for the Inter-Island Ferry
Authority's new northern route which will connect Prince of Wales
Island with Wrangell and Petersburg. The new route will go into service
in the next few months and this should provide an economic boost to the
community.
But, Coffman Cove must control the land in the heart of its community
if it is to economically diversify. For the new ferry route to bring
economic development to the City, the City must able to sell, rent, or
develop its local land base. The 12 acres which are the subject of my
bill are the 12 key acres right in the center of town. Now this is a
small town and without control of this land, the City cannot ever
successfully diversity and recovers from the change in its economy as a
result of the change in Federal timber policy.
This Forest Service desires to retain a 3 acre site for its continued
administrative purposes. My bill does not affect that site and I expect
the Forest Service to have no problem with the land conveyance
locations provided in this bill. I appreciate the assistance of the
Forest Service in helping me to draft the legislation.
This conveyance fulfills the Federal Government's commitment that
changes in Federal timber policy would be matched by Federal help to
the local communities to diversify. It is absolutely appropriate and
fair to offer Coffman Cove this former Forest Service administrative
site that no longer has value to the Federal government but that is
crucial to Coffman Cove as it plans its future.
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. 1548
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 ``Coffman Cove Administrative
Site Conveyance Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) the community of Coffman Cove, Alaska, which originated
as a logging camp in the 1960's, was incorporated as a city
in 1989;
(2) the Forest Service property located in the center of
the City was used by the Forest Service as a work center;
(3) the Forest Service work facilities included part of the
logging camp, a log sort yard, and a log transfer site, all
of which supported the long-term timber sale operations and
other subsequent timber sales in the Tongass National Forest;
(4) as the long-term timber sale operations concluded, the
need for the Forest Service to use the Forest Service site in
Coffman Cove diminished;
(5) the Forest Service work center facilities that
supported timber operations have been removed and the site
has been restored;
(6) the location of the administrative site interferes with
the ability of the City to further develop commercial
operations and tourism support facilities relating to a new
ferry terminal;
(7) the City wants to acquire a portion of the site to
continue the transition of the City from a timber-dependent
economy to a more fully developed and diversified economy;
and
(8) the Forest Service expects that only approximately 3
acres of the administrative site will be used in the future
for National Forest System purposes.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) City.--The term ``City'' means the city of Coffman
Cove, Alaska.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
SEC. 4. CONVEYANCE.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary shall convey to the City, without
consideration and without additional warrants or liability on
behalf of the United States, fee simple title to the parcel
of Forest Service land described in subsection (b).
(b) Description of Land.--
(1) In general.--The parcel of Forest Service land referred
to in subsection (a) is the approximately 12 acres of land
identified in U.S. Survey 10099, as depicted on the plat
entitled ``Subdivision of U.S. Survey No. 10099'' and
recorded as Plat 2003-1 on January 21, 2003, Petersburg
Recording District, Alaska.
(2) Excluded land.--The parcel of Forest Service land
conveyed under subsection (a) does not include the portion of
U.S. Survey 10099 that is north of the right-of-way for
Forest Development Road 3030-295 and southeast of Tract CC-8.
(c) Right-of-way.--The United States may reserve a right-
of-way to provide access to the Forest Service land excluded
from the conveyance to the City under subsection (b)(2).
____________________