[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 83 (Monday, May 21, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6401-S6407]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 1433. A bill to amend the Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act to provide competitive status to certain Federal 
employees in the State of Alaska; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, last year, as we approached the 
beginning of National Police Week 2006, our Nation was saddened by the 
tragic loss of two Fairfax County, VA, police officers, Detective Vicki 
Armel and Master Police Officer Michael Gambarino, in an ambush at the 
Sully District Police Station. Once again, as National Police Week 2007 
drew to a close, the Nation found itself in mourning at the loss of an 
officer who was ambushed over the weekend. I am referring to Moscow, 
ID, Police Officer Lee Newbill, a husband and a father of three who was 
fatally shot on Saturday night. We do not remember our fallen law 
enforcement officers for the way they gave their lives but for the way 
they lived them. The people of the State of Alaska extend our 
condolences to Officer Newbill's wife and three children. We are also 
thinking about Brannon Jordan, a Latah County sheriff s deputy who was 
shot in the incident, but who is expected to recover, according to 
media reports.
  I would like to take this opportunity once again to speak about the 
life and accomplishments of the late Thomas P. O'Hara, a National Park 
Service protection ranger and pilot who gave his life in the line of 
duty, an Alaskan hero.
  Thomas P. O'Hara was assigned to the Katmai National Park and 
Preserve in the Bristol Bay region of western Alaska. On December 19, 
2002, Ranger O'Hara and his passenger, a Fish and Wildlife Service 
employee, were on a mission in the Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife 
Refuge. Their plane went down on the tundra.

[[Page S6402]]

  When the plane was reported overdue, a rescue effort consisting of 14 
single-engine aircraft, an Alaska Air National Guard plane, and a Coast 
Guard helicopter quickly mobilized. Many of the single-engine aircraft 
were piloted by Torn's friends. The wreckage was located late in the 
afternoon of December 20. The passenger survived the crash, but Ranger 
Torn did not.
  Tom O'Hara was an experienced pilot with 11,000 hours as a pilot-in-
command. He was active in the communities of Naknek and King Salmon 
where he grew up, flying children to Bible camp and coaching young 
wrestlers. Tom provided a strong link between the residents of Bristol 
Bay and the National Park Service.
  Although Tom O'Hara was a most valued employee of the National Park 
Service, he did not enjoy the same status as National Park Service 
employees with competitive career status. Tom was hired under a special 
hiring authority established under the Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act, ANILCA, which permits land management agencies like 
the National Park Service to hire, on a noncompetitive basis, Alaskans 
who by reason of having lived or worked in or near public lands in 
Alaska, have special knowledge or expertise concerning the natural or 
cultural resources of public lands and the management thereof.
  Tom O'Hara possessed this knowledge and offered it freely to the 
National Park Service. But because he was hired under this special 
authority, his opportunities for transfer and promotion within the Park 
Service were limited, even though his service was exemplary.
  As a lasting memorial to Tom O'Hara's exemplary career, I am 
introducing legislation today that will grant competitive status to 
ANILCA local hire employees who hold permanent appointments with the 
Federal land management agencies after the completion of 2 years of 
satisfactory service. In Tom's honor, the short title of this 
legislation is the Thomas P. O'Hara Public Land Career Opportunity Act 
of 2007.
  It is my sincere hope that the enactment of this legislation will 
encourage other Alaskans, particularly Alaska Natives, to follow in Tom 
O'Hara's footsteps and seek lifelong careers with the Federal land 
management agencies.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1440

       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 ``Thomas P. O'Hara Public Land 
     Career Opportunity Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. COMPETITIVE STATUS FOR CERTAIN FEDERAL EMPLOYEES IN 
                   THE STATE OF ALASKA.

       Section 1308 of the Alaska National Interest Lands 
     Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3198) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections 
     (d) and (e), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Competitive Status.--An individual appointed to a 
     permanent position under subsection (a) shall be converted to 
     competitive status after--
       ``(1) if the appointment is full time, the completion of 2 
     years of competitive and satisfactory full time service; or
       ``(2) if the appointment is less than full time, the period 
     that is equivalent to 2 years of competitive and satisfactory 
     full time service.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COCHRAN:
  S. 1435. A bill to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to 
increase the capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, in 1975, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
was established, after the Arab oil embargo, to lessen the impact of 
future severe energy supply disruptions. Since 1975, the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve, SPR, has served as our Nation's energy insurance 
policy.
  The legislation I offer today expands the capacity of the SPR from 1 
billion barrels, as authorized in the Energy Policy and Conservation 
Act, to 1.5 billion barrels.
  Memorial day marks the beginning of the summer vacation season, and 
this summer all of our constituents are facing escalating gasoline 
prices. Expanding our domestic supplies of oil, gas, and petroleum has 
become crucial.
  Increasingly, internationally traded oil originates from unstable 
regions of the world. The United States' economic security is 
threatened by vulnerability to disruptions in world oil supply and 
volatile oil prices. The Nation's transportation sector, major 
industries, and military are dependent upon petroleum, and so it is 
crucial that we do what we can to minimize disruptions in the world oil 
supply.
  The existing inventory in the SPR represents only 56 days of net 
imports. The United States' obligation to the member countries of the 
International Energy Agency requires it to maintain the equivalent of 
90 days of net petroleum imports. Though the inclusion of private 
inventories allows the U.S. to satisfy the IEA obligation, increasing 
the authorized capacity of the SPR to 1.5 billion barrels will help 
ensure the United States meets its international obligations, 
regardless of commercial inventory trends.
  In December of 2006, the Department of Energy chose the salt domes in 
Richton, Mississippi as their preferred site for the construction of a 
new Strategic Petroleum Reserve facility to lead the expansion efforts. 
I am proud that Mississippi was chosen to lead the efforts of such an 
important program, and I know that the community of Richton, which 
suffered in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, is thrilled to begin 
construction on a project that will strengthen its economic 
development. Current SPR sites in Texas and Louisiana will also gain 
reserves.
  I urge the Senate to support this bill. The entire country's energy 
security and stability depends on a combination of efforts to increase 
domestic supplies of oil, gas, and petroleum. I am pleased that my 
colleagues in the Senate are promoting new renewable energy 
technologies through legislation, and it is through a combination of 
these efforts that we might finally reduce our dependence upon foreign 
oil.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. STABENOW (for herself, Mr. Obama, Mr. Brown, Mr. Reid, 
        Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Durbin, 
        Mr. Menendez, Mrs. Feinstein, and Ms. Landrieu):
  S. 1437. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint 
coins in commemoration of the semicentennial of the enactment of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
Urban Affairs.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of a bill 
that directs the Treasury Department to mint 350,000 $1 coins marking 
the semi-centennial of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 greatly expanded civil rights 
protections by outlawing racial discrimination and segregation in 
public places and places of public accommodation, in federally funded 
programs and employment, and encouraging desegregation in public 
schools, and has served as a model for subsequent antidiscrimination 
laws.
  This landmark legislation once implemented, had effects that were far 
reaching and that, clearly from its inception to today, fundamentally 
changed the course of our Nation.
  Equality and access to education were two of the hallmarks of the 
civil rights movement.
  The United Negro College Fund, UNCF, is the Nation's largest, oldest, 
most successful and comprehensive minority higher education assistance 
organization. UNCF provides operating funds and technology enhancement 
services for 39 member historically black colleges and universities, 
HBCUs, scholarships and internships for students at about 900 
institutions and faculty and administrative professional training.
  Since its inception in 1943, the UNCF has raised more than $2 billion 
to help a total of more than 350,000 students attend college and has 
distributed more funds to help minorities attend school than any entity 
outside of the government.
  Besides being a noble tribute, this commemorative coin will assist 
the UNCF provide scholarships and internships for minority students and 
assist

[[Page S6403]]

with technology enhancement services for historically black colleges 
and universities.
  In Michigan, the on-time graduation rate for African American 
students is less than half that of the overall rate for high school 
students. Moreover, the percentage of Michigan high school freshmen 
enrolling in college within 4 years is just 38 percent, the rate for 
the top States is 53 percent. These statistics are astounding. Michigan 
currently is working to invest more State dollars into improving high 
school education and reforming graduation requirements to some of the 
most rigorous in the Nation. If we make scholarships like this one 
available to students, and organizations like the UNCF helping African 
Americans get into colleges and stay in colleges, not just historically 
black colleges and universities, these statistics will improve. I am 
confident this coin bill is a step toward improving the state of 
college attendance and graduation rates for African American students.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Casey):
  S. 1440. A bill to provide for judicial determination of injury in 
certain cases involving dumped and subsidized merchandise imported into 
the United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce 
the Unfair Foreign Competition Act of 2007, legislation providing a 
private right of action for domestic manufacturers injured by the 
illegal subsidization and dumping of foreign products into U.S. 
markets. These unfair, and illegal, trade practices steal jobs from our 
workers, profits from our companies, and economic growth from our 
economy.
  Dumping occurs when a foreign producer sells a product in the United 
States at a price that is below that producer's sales price in its home 
market, or at a price that is lower than its cost of production. 
Subsidizing occurs when a foreign government provides financial 
assistance to benefit the production, manufacture, or exportation of a 
good. Under current law, the International Trade Commission, ITC, and 
the Department of Commerce conduct antidumping and countervailing duty 
investigations and 5-year reviews under title VII of the Tariff Act of 
1930. U.S. industries may petition the ITC and Commerce for relief from 
dumped and subsidized imports. If Commerce finds that an imported 
product is dumped or subsidized and the ITC finds that the petitioning 
U.S. industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury, 
an antidumping duty order or countervailing duty order will be imposed 
to offset the dumping or subsidies.
  However, since current administrative remedies are not consistently 
and effectively enforced, I am introducing private right of action 
legislation to enforce the law. My legislation allows petitioners to 
choose between the ITC and their local U.S. district court for the 
injury determination phase of their investigation. Doing so gives our 
injured domestic producers the opportunity to display their vigor as 
private plaintiffs in seeking enforcement of our trade laws. If injury 
is found, U.S. Customs and Border Protection would then assess duties 
on future importation of the article in question. The legal standard 
for determining dumping margins which is established by the Commerce 
Department would remain unchanged.

  I believe that introduction of this legislation will have an 
important deterrent effect on the practices of China and our other 
trading partners. Aggressive policy measures such as this legislation 
are necessary to prevent China, in particular, from causing a major 
crisis in the near future for our domestic steel industry. China has a 
well-documented history of engaging in unfair trade practices, as 
evidenced by the 61 antidumping orders in place with respect to various 
products as of October 23, 2006. The statistics on China's steel output 
are staggering. In 2005, China made more steel than the next four 
largest producers combined and data show that China continues to become 
more export-oriented. Through the first 10 months of 2006, China's 
steel tonnage exports to the U.S. market more than doubled over 2005. 
In total, Chinese steel output grew 26 percent or more than 71 million 
metric tons in 2005. The explosive growth of Chinese steel over the 
past decade would not have been possible without the support of the 
Chinese Government.
  This legislation is similar to legislation which I have introduced as 
far back as 1982 where I originally sought injunctive relief. Since its 
last introduction in the 106th Congress, several relevant statutes have 
been challenged at the World Trade Organization, WTO, prompting further 
modification to its current form. In each case, the United States has 
taken action to comply and avoid retaliatory actions by protesting WTO 
member countries. The United States took action in December 2004 to 
comply with WTO rulings on the Antidumping Act of 1916, which provided 
a private cause of action and criminal penalties for dumping, by 
prospectively repealing the act. Also, the United States took action in 
February 2006 to comply with WTO rulings on the Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act, CDSOA, which required the distribution of collected 
antidumping and countervailing duties to petitioners and interested 
parties in the underlying trade proceedings. In both cases, the WTO 
panel found that U.S. law allowed an impermissible specific action 
against dumping and subsidization. The legislation I introduce today 
adapts to these changes in law and allows for a determination of injury 
in accordance with our international obligations.
  We have too long sacrificed American industry and American jobs 
because the executive branch, whether it is a Democratic administration 
or a Republican administration, has made concessions for foreign policy 
and defense interests. For many years, foreign policy and defense 
policy have superseded basic fairness on trade policy. I received a 
comprehensive education on this subject back in 1984 when there was a 
favorable ruling by the ITC for the American steel industry, but it was 
subject to review by the President. At that time my colleague Senator 
Heinz and I visited every one of the Cabinet officers in an effort to 
get support to see to it that the International Trade Commission ruling 
in favor of the American steel industry was upheld. Then-Secretary of 
Commerce Malcolm Baldrige was favorable, and International Trade 
Representative Bill Brock was favorable. We received a favorable 
hearing in all quarters until we spoke with then-Secretary of State 
Shultz and then-Secretary of Defense Weinberger who were absolutely 
opposed to the ITC ruling. President Reagan decided to overrule the 
ITC, and U.S. trade policy and workers again took second place to 
foreign policy concerns.
  I was reminded of this reality again in 2005 when I testified on 
behalf of the domestic pipe and tube industry in a section 421 
safeguard case against China. This safeguard provision was inserted as 
a protective measure when unique and permanent trade status was granted 
to China, a measure which I opposed. It seemed to me that based upon 
the record that China had, that normal relations could not exist 
because they have a record of not observing the law. With these 
concerns in mind, Congress inserted the section 421 safeguard 
provision. The ITC agreed with the overwhelming evidence supporting the 
claim that a surge of imports from China were creating a market 
disruption. However, President Bush decided not to uphold the ITC's 
ruling. Since that time, jobs in my state have been lost. The Section 
421 provision was included to provide protection for our domestic 
manufacturing base. Yet, none of the five petitions previously filed 
had been granted either. It is difficult to understand how safeguards 
for situations where China's conduct is excessive and unfair could be 
ignored, especially after giving special consideration by way of trade.
  While it is my hope that the administration, whether Democrat or 
Republican, would take a more objective look at trade remedies for our 
injured domestic manufacturers, I introduce this legislation today to 
provide a valuable tool for domestic industry. Strict enforcement of 
our trade laws is critical to ensuring that our domestic manufacturers 
have a fair shot at competing with foreign steel. In the current 
environment, I believe that it is necessary

[[Page S6404]]

for an injured industry to have an opportunity to go into Federal court 
and seek reliable enforcement of America's trade laws, which are 
currently not being enforced adequately.
  I ask my colleagues to join me now in supporting this legislation. I 
believe in free trade. But the essence of free trade is selling goods 
at a price equal to the cost of production and a reasonable profit. 
Where you have dumping or subsidization, it is the antithesis of free 
trade. The significant advances made by our manufacturers are 
insufficient to compete in the face of illegal trade practices such as 
dumping and subsidies. Our steel industry is made up of some of the 
most innovative, skilled, and efficient producers in the world. Our 
industry can compete if the playing field is level, but if foreign 
exporters are not held accountable, and can freely undercut American 
producers with dumped goods and government subsidies, the future of our 
steel industry will be at risk.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG:
  S. 1441. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to modify 
authorities for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to accept new 
applications for grants for State home construction projects to 
authorize the Secretary to award grants for construction of facilities 
used in non-institutional care programs, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
make, what I believe to be, vital and necessary changes to one of the 
most successful Federal-State partnership programs in the Nation today. 
I am speaking of the State Veterans Home Program at the Department of 
Veterans Affairs.
  For those of my colleagues who do not know very much about this great 
program, the Federal-State partnership known as the State Home Program 
dates back nearly 120 years. It was August 7, 1888, when a $100 check 
from the Federal government helped the State of Connecticut offset the 
financial burden of caring for aging Civil War veterans. Since that 
time, of course, the program has greatly matured. And it has grown into 
the largest institutional provider of long-term care services for our 
Nation's aging veterans.
  Today, the grant part of the program receives an annual appropriation 
of about $100 million. VA uses the money to pay for two-thirds of the 
costs of constructing State home beds pursuant to applications 
submitted by the States. After a home is built, the State operates the 
nursing facility and maintains the property for the benefit of 
veterans. VA, in turn, pays a daily stipend to the State of 
approximately $60 for each veteran in the home. The States then support 
the rest of the cost of care either by collecting some money from the 
veterans or through direct appropriation from the State legislature.
  I realize that my description of this program may have some of my 
colleagues scratching their heads trying to find out why I believe the 
program needs to change and modernize. Let me explain.

  As many of you know, during the 107th Congress, I served as chairman 
of the Senate Special Committee on Aging. I did a lot of work on long-
term care issues and held many hearings on the topic. What I learned is 
that there is a big shift across the country from the traditional 
institutional care to a less restrictive, family oriented, home and 
community based approach to care.
  When I became chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 
I found that VA's system is strongly biased toward institutional care. 
We spend most of our long-term care budget on institutional beds.
  I realize that nursing homes are sometimes the best place for a sick, 
aging person to be properly cared for. Therefore, clearly VA needs to 
provide that service. But, let's face it. All of us would prefer that 
we never end up in a nursing home. We would do everything within our 
power to remain in the comfort and safety of our homes and with our 
families.
  The interesting thing about our human desire to remain in our own 
homes and out of nursing homes is that our human desire is also a 
positive financial desire. Noninstitutional long-term care services are 
much more cost-effective than care provided in an institutional 
setting. Providing people with long-term care options and the 
opportunity to remain in their homes for as long as possible is exactly 
what my legislation is about.
  There is an old saying that goes ``when all you have is a hammer, the 
whole world looks like nails.'' Essentially what that means is, we use 
the tools we have to solve whatever problem arises, even if a different 
tool might be more appropriate.
  For nearly 120 years, with little exception, the only tool available 
through the State Veterans Home Program has been a bed: an 
institutional nursing home bed. So, whenever a veteran in a local 
community has independent living challenges, the State home program has 
a tool to help them: it has a bed. My Legislation would give the State 
homes additional tools to offer our veterans.
  My bill would establish a noninstitutional care State home grant 
program. The premise of the new program would be the same as the 
current institutional program. States would submit an application to 
construct a building or renovate part of an existing state home to 
offer noninstitutional services to veterans. The State would have to 
provide one-third of the cost for construction and then take ownership 
and operational responsibility for the building and the care after the 
facility opens.
  Similar to the payment structure today, VA would provide a daily 
payment for each veteran who receives services from the facility.
  My legislation would also make some changes in the state home grant 
program that would help it transition into a more modern care delivery 
system.
  As my colleagues may be aware, under the current program, States 
submit applications to VA to receive construction assistance. If the 
State can demonstrate that the project meets VA's requirements for 
quality; that its use will be primarily for veterans; and that the 
State has its one-third matching funds, then VA approves the project 
and places it on list according to a statutory priority.

  My bill would create a 2-year window, starting with the date of 
enactment, for States to submit their new bed applications. Similarly, 
it would create a 2-year window for any State to come up with matching 
funds for any approved application that currently lacks the required 
match. After the 2-year window, VA would be prohibited from accepting 
any new applications for new bed construction.
  I believe the reason we need this change is simple. For fiscal year 
2007, there are $808 million in grant proposals on VA's approved list. 
Approximately $490 million in project proposals are in priority one 
status, meaning that the States have provided the required one-third 
matching funds.
  At the rate of $100 million per year provided by Congress to fund 
these grants, it will take nearly 9 more years for Congress to fund all 
of the current projects on the list. That, of course, is assuming that 
no new projects will be added to it. And construction of all of those 
projects would probably not be completed until about 15 years from now.
  All of that may sound like long-term planning for future care needs. 
However, as I mentioned earlier, the Nation as a whole is moving away 
from institutionalizing the elderly.
  Our aging years are supposed to be our golden years. We conjure up 
images of sitting on a porch, sipping tea with our spouse of 50 plus 
years watching the sun set. The reality, unfortunately, is that in many 
cases those years are spent separated from one another as one spouse is 
no longer able to fully care for the other. And the only option 
available for assistance is institutionalization. We can do better. And 
this bill will move us in that direction for our veterans.
  I ask all of us to consider why we have a policy at VA that 
encourages spending nearly $1 billion building 5,300 more new beds in a 
system that already has about 20,000 beds when we as a nation are 
trying to move in a direction that provides home and community based 
care programs that keep the elderly in their homes and out of long-term 
care institutions. I think VA and the States should change course for 
the betterment of our Nation's heroes.
  I believe that by phasing out the current institutional bias and 
focusing the

[[Page S6405]]

energy and finances of the program on noninstitutional alternatives, VA 
and the States will serve more veterans and keep those veterans in 
their homes, where they want to be, for a much longer time.
  I realize that we will still probably fund 5 or 6 thousand more new 
beds in the State home program just because of the 2-year window. But I 
recognize that Senators and Representatives will strongly support the 
institutional grants so long as their State has an application pending. 
I do not blame the Members. I would do the same thing if Idaho had 
submitted an application. So, I want to give everyone's State a fair 
chance to participate in the program.
  But, I also believe that we need to transition beyond beds. And if we 
fail to set out the transition soon, I believe we will find ourselves 
20 years from now undertaking a painful study on what to do with 15,000 
empty nursing home beds in all of our States. Noninstitutional service 
is simply the direction of long-term care and health care today because 
families want to be together and home is where they want to be.
  VA's partnership with the States to provide long-term care to our 
Nation's veterans is an unmitigated success. We must continue to 
support the 20,000 beds we currently have. And we will. They provide 
the most compassionate, cost-effective institutional care in the 
Nation. But, we also must modernize the program.
  We must keep up with the trends in health care that are pointing us 
in the direction of home and community-based services and away from 
institutions. We must change to find a way to serve more veterans with 
the same amount of resources. But, most importantly, we must modernize 
because it is the humane and right thing to do in responding to the 
wishes of our constituents to stay home in their later years and grow 
old with the people they love.
  I urge all of my colleagues to join in this effort by cosponsoring 
this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY:
  S.J. Res. 13. A joint resolution granting the consent of Congress to 
the International Emergency Management Assistance Memorandum of 
Understanding; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a joint 
resolution that would grant the consent of Congress to the 
International Emergency Management Assistance Memorandum of 
Understanding, IEMAMOU compact. This joint resolution would formally 
approve of the IEMAMOU compact, a mutual emergency assistance agreement 
entered into by the New England States, including my home State of 
Vermont and several Canadian Provinces, who are our neighbors to the 
north. This mutual assistance compact, which has been agreed to and 
operating in principle for more than 5 years, allows for cooperation 
between emergency responders in the United States and Canada during 
natural disasters and other serious emergencies. This compact is an 
extraordinary example of the international cooperation and good will 
which makes our countries more secure and our citizens safer. Congress 
should pass this joint resolution to give this vital compact the full 
force of law.
  We must all do our best to prepare for the most serious emergencies 
that can harm our communities. These crises may arise from natural or 
manmade disasters, or from technological hazards or civil emergencies. 
As those who live in the Northeast know, extreme weather is not 
uncommon in New England, or in the eastern Provinces of Canada. 
Together with our Canadian neighbors, we have endured catastrophic 
blizzards and ice storms over the years that have closed roads and 
highways, shut down power for extended periods, and stranded travelers 
and rural residents for days, or longer. At times, we have also 
suffered the misfortune of responding to serious accidents, such as 
train or plane crashes. Of course, our concerns for safety surrounding 
nuclear powerplants and other industrial sites warrants extensive 
planning and preparedness for even the possibility of technological 
disasters. During these events, we turn to our first responders and our 
emergency management professionals to provide assistance and secure 
public safety no matter how grave the danger, and no matter how 
challenging the task.
  The IEMMOU compact was created in response to the devastating ice 
storm of 1998. In January of that year, an unprecedented 3-day ice 
storm paralyzed portions of the northern New England States and the 
adjacent Canadian Provinces causing massive damage to the electrical 
and transportation infrastructure. Millions were left in the dark for 
days and even weeks, leaving more than 30 dead and shutting down normal 
activities in large cities like Montreal and Ottawa. Following this 
devastation, the governors and premiers of those regions affected 
recognized the need for greater cross-border emergency cooperation, and 
they directed their emergency management leaders to develop and create 
a memorandum of understanding on these issues that benefit all parties 
north and south of the border. The IEMAMOU compact was the result of 
this collaborative, international process, and now stands as a model 
compact for cross-border mutual emergency assistance.
  The compact allows for international sharing of resources and 
expertise in times of extreme emergency or disaster. For example, rural 
States, such as my own, may need to call upon specialized resources 
found in other larger States or neighboring Provinces to respond 
immediately to events, such as chemical disasters or mass transit 
accidents. With natural disasters, such as prolonged, severe winter 
storms, the areas affected may be so vast, stretching across several 
States or Provinces that no single jurisdiction alone could respond 
fully to the crisis. There are also events that occur along or near our 
border with Canada which require the immediate response and full 
cooperation of States and Provinces in both nations. The IEMAMOU 
compact meets these needs with a thoughtful and forward-looking outline 
of how to address issues that face first responders and their managers 
in times of cross-border emergency.
  This international compact provides a legal framework for cooperation 
and mutual assistance between the States of Vermont, New Hampshire, 
Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, and the Canadian 
Provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, 
and Newfoundland and Labrador. The compact requires each participating 
member, whether State or Province, to formulate plans and programs to 
facilitate international and interstate or provincial cooperation in 
case of natural or manmade disaster, technological hazard, or civil 
emergency. The compact also provides for the temporary suspension of 
statutes or ordinances in each jurisdiction that may impede the 
implementation of these plans. For example, under the compact, 
government officials and law enforcement authorities from one member 
State or Province can officially work in other jurisdictions during 
times of emergency, a circumstance that would not be permitted 
otherwise.
  The compact also creates a formal mechanism for making assistance 
requests from one state or province to another, and encourages frequent 
consultation between the emergency management leaders to develop free 
exchange of information and resources across borders. In addition, the 
compact provides a Good Samaritan provision, which gives liability 
protection for emergency responders who act in good faith in providing 
assistance in a legal jurisdiction outside their own, and creates 
reciprocal workers compensation and other benefits to emergency 
responders who may get injured in responding to an emergency under the 
compact. Finally, the compact allows for reimbursement between members 
States or Provinces for losses or damages incurred in responding under 
the agreement.
  All members of this compact have agreed to its terms and join in 
requesting Congress's consent for the agreement. Vermont, New 
Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut have 
joined the IEMAMOU compact, and many of these States have passed 
legislation adopting the compact under State law. The Premiers of 
Quebec, Prince Edward Island, Labrador, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick 
have similarly approved of the

[[Page S6406]]

compact. The IEMAMOU compact has been functioning in principle for more 
than 5 years, as the emergency management leaders from each member 
State and Province meet twice a year. Planning among the constituent 
members of the compact is also ongoing. This compact works well and 
should be supported by Congress.

  The IEMAMOU compact is an international agreement between States and 
a foreign power, and it cannot have the full force of law without the 
formal approval of Congress. The U.S. Constitution requires that ``[n]o 
state shall . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another 
State, or with a foreign Power'' unless with the ``consent of 
Congress.'' U.S. Const. Art. 1, Sec.  10, cl. 3. The joint resolution 
introduced today provides this necessary consent, and would give legal 
force to the compact. Congressional approval of this compact would also 
provide jurisdiction for Federal courts to resolve any disputes under 
the agreement.
  This joint resolution is vitally important to the New England States 
and our Canadian Provinces to the north. Congress should support their 
cooperative, international leadership in creating and implementing this 
unique emergency management compact. The Governor of Vermont supports 
this joint resolution as do the leaders of the North East States 
Emergency Consortium, which represents each of the New England States 
in the compact.
  This is not the first time I have supported this joint resolution. In 
2001, this joint resolution was introduced by my colleague from New 
Hampshire, Senator Robert Smith, and I joined him as a cosponsor along 
with Senators Lieberman, Jeffords, Chafee, and Gregg. As Chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee, I moved the joint resolution through Committee 
where it passed by unanimous consent on October 31, 2001. With my 
support and that of other Senators, the joint resolution passed the 
Senate by unanimous consent on December 20, 2001, in the last month of 
the Democratic majority in the 107 Congress. Unfortunately, the House 
never came to consider the joint resolution, and it failed to become 
law. Since then, under the Republican leadership of the 108 and 109 
Congresses, the joint resolution has only been introduced once and has 
not moved beyond referral to committee.
  It is time to take action and pass this joint resolution without 
further delay. The IEMAMOU compact provides invaluable international 
cooperation and mutual assistance in times of natural disaster and 
extreme emergency. This compact works well for New England and the 
eastern Canadian provinces, and it stands as a model for emergency 
management planning and cooperation across this country. It is a 
crucial element of the security and safety planning for all communities 
in New England and eastern Canada, and we can wait no longer for it to 
become law.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 13

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT.

       Congress consents to the International Emergency Management 
     Assistance Memorandum of Understanding entered into between 
     the States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, 
     Rhode Island, and Connecticut and the Provinces of Quebec, 
     New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and 
     Newfoundland. The compact is substantially as follows:

     ``ARTICLE I--INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE 
                   MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING PURPOSE AND 
                   AUTHORITIES

       ``The International Emergency Management Assistance 
     Memorandum of Understanding, hereinafter referred to as the 
     `compact,' is made and entered into by and among such of the 
     jurisdictions as shall enact or adopt this compact, 
     hereinafter referred to as `party jurisdictions.' For the 
     purposes of this agreement, the term `jurisdictions' may 
     include any or all of the States of Maine, New Hampshire, 
     Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut and the 
     Provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, 
     Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, and such other states and 
     provinces as may hereafter become a party to this compact.
       ``The purpose of this compact is to provide for the 
     possibility of mutual assistance among the jurisdictions 
     entering into this compact in managing any emergency or 
     disaster when the affected jurisdiction or jurisdictions ask 
     for assistance, whether arising from natural disaster, 
     technological hazard, manmade disaster or civil emergency 
     aspects of resources shortages.
       ``This compact also provides for the process of planning 
     mechanisms among the agencies responsible and for mutual 
     cooperation, including, if need be, emergency-related 
     exercises, testing, or other training activities using 
     equipment and personnel simulating performance of any aspect 
     of the giving and receiving of aid by party jurisdictions or 
     subdivisions of party jurisdictions during emergencies, with 
     such actions occurring outside actual declared emergency 
     periods. Mutual assistance in this compact may include the 
     use of emergency forces by mutual agreement among party 
     jurisdictions.

     ``ARTICLE II--GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION

       ``Each party jurisdiction entering into this compact 
     recognizes that many emergencies may exceed the capabilities 
     of a party jurisdiction and that intergovernmental 
     cooperation is essential in such circumstances. Each 
     jurisdiction further recognizes that there will be 
     emergencies that may require immediate access and present 
     procedures to apply outside resources to make a prompt and 
     effective response to such an emergency because few, if any, 
     individual jurisdictions have all the resources they need in 
     all types of emergencies or the capability of delivering 
     resources to areas where emergencies exist.
       ``The prompt, full, and effective utilization of resources 
     of the participating jurisdictions, including any resources 
     on hand or available from any other source that are essential 
     to the safety, care, and welfare of the people in the event 
     of any emergency or disaster, shall be the underlying 
     principle on which all articles of this compact are 
     understood.
       ``On behalf of the party jurisdictions participating in the 
     compact, the legally designated official who is assigned 
     responsibility for emergency management is responsible for 
     formulation of the appropriate inter-jurisdictional mutual 
     aid plans and procedures necessary to implement this compact, 
     and for recommendations to the jurisdiction concerned with 
     respect to the amendment of any statutes, regulations, or 
     ordinances required for that purpose.

     ``ARTICLE III--PARTY JURISDICTION RESPONSIBILITIES

       ``(a) Formulate Plans and Programs.--It is the 
     responsibility of each party jurisdiction to formulate 
     procedural plans and programs for inter-jurisdictional 
     cooperation in the performance of the responsibilities listed 
     in this section. In formulating and implementing such plans 
     and programs the party jurisdictions, to the extent 
     practical, shall--
       ``(1) review individual jurisdiction hazards analyses that 
     are available and, to the extent reasonably possible, 
     determine all those potential emergencies the party 
     jurisdictions might jointly suffer, whether due to natural 
     disaster, technological hazard, man-made disaster or 
     emergency aspects of resource shortages;
       ``(2) initiate a process to review party jurisdictions' 
     individual emergency plans and develop a plan that will 
     determine the mechanism for the inter-jurisdictional 
     cooperation;
       ``(3) develop inter-jurisdictional procedures to fill any 
     identified gaps and to resolve any identified inconsistencies 
     or overlaps in existing or developed plans;
       ``(4) assist in warning communities adjacent to or crossing 
     jurisdictional boundaries;
       ``(5) protect and ensure delivery of services, medicines, 
     water, food, energy and fuel, search and rescue, and critical 
     lifeline equipment, services and resources, both human and 
     material to the extent authorized by law;
       ``(6) inventory and agree upon procedures for the inter-
     jurisdictional loan and delivery of human and material 
     resources, together with procedures for reimbursement or 
     forgiveness; and
       ``(7) provide, to the extent authorized by law, for 
     temporary suspension of any statutes or ordinances, over 
     which the province or state has jurisdiction, that impede the 
     implementation of the responsibilities described in this 
     subsection.
       ``(b) Request Assistance.--The authorized representative of 
     a party jurisdiction may request assistance of another party 
     jurisdiction by contacting the authorized representative of 
     that jurisdiction. These provisions only apply to requests 
     for assistance made by and to authorized representatives. 
     Requests may be verbal or in writing. If verbal, the request 
     must be confirmed in writing within 15 days of the verbal 
     request. Requests must provide the following information:
       ``(1) A description of the emergency service function for 
     which assistance is needed and of the mission or missions, 
     including but not limited to fire services, emergency 
     medical, transportation, communications, public works and 
     engineering, building inspection, planning and information 
     assistance, mass care, resource support, health and medical 
     services, and search and rescue.
       ``(2) The amount and type of personnel, equipment, 
     materials, and supplies needed and a reasonable estimate of 
     the length of time they will be needed.
       ``(3) The specific place and time for staging of the 
     assisting party's response and a point of contact at the 
     location.

[[Page S6407]]

       ``(c) Consultation Among Party Jurisdiction Officials.--
     There shall be frequent consultation among the party 
     jurisdiction officials who have assigned emergency management 
     responsibilities, such officials collectively known 
     hereinafter as the International Emergency Management Group, 
     and other appropriate representatives of the party 
     jurisdictions with free exchange of information, plans, and 
     resource records relating to emergency capabilities to the 
     extent authorized by law.

     ``ARTICLE IV--LIMITATION

       ``Any party jurisdiction requested to render mutual aid or 
     conduct exercises and training for mutual aid shall undertake 
     to respond as soon as possible, except that it is understood 
     that the jurisdiction rendering aid may withhold or recall 
     resources to the extent necessary to provide reasonable 
     protection for that jurisdiction. Each party jurisdiction 
     shall afford to the personnel of the emergency forces of any 
     party jurisdiction, while operating within its jurisdictional 
     limits under the terms and conditions of this compact and 
     under the operational control of an officer of the requesting 
     party, the same powers, duties, rights, privileges, and 
     immunities as are afforded similar or like forces of the 
     jurisdiction in which they are performing emergency services. 
     Emergency forces continue under the command and control of 
     their regular leaders, but the organizational units come 
     under the operational control of the emergency services 
     authorities of the jurisdiction receiving assistance. These 
     conditions may be activated, as needed, by the jurisdiction 
     that is to receive assistance or upon commencement of 
     exercises or training for mutual aid and continue as long as 
     the exercises or training for mutual aid are in progress, the 
     emergency or disaster remains in effect or loaned resources 
     remain in the receiving jurisdiction or jurisdictions, 
     whichever is longer. The receiving jurisdiction is 
     responsible for informing the assisting jurisdictions of the 
     specific moment when services will no longer be required.

     ``ARTICLE V--LICENSES AND PERMITS

       ``Whenever a person holds a license, certificate, or other 
     permit issued by any jurisdiction party to the compact 
     evidencing the meeting of qualifications for professional, 
     mechanical, or other skills, and when such assistance is 
     requested by the receiving party jurisdiction, such person is 
     deemed to be licensed, certified, or permitted by the 
     jurisdiction requesting assistance to render aid involving 
     such skill to meet an emergency or disaster, subject to such 
     limitations and conditions as the requesting jurisdiction 
     prescribes by Executive order or otherwise.

     ``ARTICLE VI--LIABILITY

       ``Any person or entity of a party jurisdiction rendering 
     aid in another jurisdiction pursuant to this compact are 
     considered agents of the requesting jurisdiction for tort 
     liability and immunity purposes. Any person or entity 
     rendering aid in another jurisdiction pursuant to this 
     compact are not liable on account of any act or omission in 
     good faith on the part of such forces while so engaged or on 
     account of the maintenance or use of any equipment or 
     supplies in connection therewith. Good faith in this article 
     does not include willful misconduct, gross negligence, or 
     recklessness.

     ``ARTICLE VII--SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENTS

       ``Because it is probable that the pattern and detail of the 
     machinery for mutual aid among 2 or more jurisdictions may 
     differ from that among the jurisdictions that are party to 
     this compact, this compact contains elements of a broad base 
     common to all jurisdictions, and nothing in this compact 
     precludes any jurisdiction from entering into supplementary 
     agreements with another jurisdiction or affects any other 
     agreements already in force among jurisdictions. 
     Supplementary agreements may include, but are not limited to, 
     provisions for evacuation and reception of injured and other 
     persons and the exchange of medical, fire, public utility, 
     reconnaissance, welfare, transportation and communications 
     personnel, equipment, and supplies.

     ``ARTICLE VIII--WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND DEATH BENEFITS

       ``Each party jurisdiction shall provide, in accordance with 
     its own laws, for the payment of workers' compensation and 
     death benefits to injured members of the emergency forces of 
     that jurisdiction and to representatives of deceased members 
     of those forces if the members sustain injuries or are killed 
     while rendering aid pursuant to this compact, in the same 
     manner and on the same terms as if the injury or death were 
     sustained within their own jurisdiction.

     ``ARTICLE IX--REIMBURSEMENT

       ``Any party jurisdiction rendering aid in another 
     jurisdiction pursuant to this compact shall, if requested, be 
     reimbursed by the party jurisdiction receiving such aid for 
     any loss or damage to, or expense incurred in, the operation 
     of any equipment and the provision of any service in 
     answering a request for aid and for the costs incurred in 
     connection with those requests. An aiding party jurisdiction 
     may assume in whole or in part any such loss, damage, 
     expense, or other cost or may loan such equipment or donate 
     such services to the receiving party jurisdiction without 
     charge or cost. Any 2 or more party jurisdictions may enter 
     into supplementary agreements establishing a different 
     allocation of costs among those jurisdictions. Expenses under 
     article VIII are not reimbursable under this section.

     ``ARTICLE X--EVACUATION

       ``Each party jurisdiction shall initiate a process to 
     prepare and maintain plans to facilitate the movement of and 
     reception of evacuees into its territory or across its 
     territory, according to its capabilities and powers. The 
     party jurisdiction from which the evacuees came shall assume 
     the ultimate responsibility for the support of the evacuees, 
     and after the termination of the emergency or disaster, for 
     the repatriation of such evacuees.

     ``ARTICLE XI--IMPLEMENTATION

       ``(a) This compact is effective upon its execution or 
     adoption by any 2 jurisdictions, and is effective as to any 
     other jurisdiction upon its execution or adoption thereby: 
     subject to approval or authorization by the United States 
     Congress, if required, and subject to enactment of provincial 
     or State legislation that may be required for the 
     effectiveness of the Memorandum of Understanding.
       ``(b) Any party jurisdiction may withdraw from this 
     compact, but the withdrawal does not take effect until 30 
     days after the governor or premier of the withdrawing 
     jurisdiction has given notice in writing of such withdrawal 
     to the governors or premiers of all other party 
     jurisdictions. The action does not relieve the withdrawing 
     jurisdiction from obligations assumed under this compact 
     prior to the effective date of withdrawal.
       ``(c) Duly authenticated copies of this compact in the 
     French and English languages and of such supplementary 
     agreements as may be entered into shall, at the time of their 
     approval, be deposited with each of the party jurisdictions.

     ``ARTICLE XII--SEVERABILITY

       ``This compact is construed to effectuate the purposes 
     stated in Article I. If any provision of this compact is 
     declared unconstitutional or the applicability of the compact 
     to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the validity 
     of the remainder of this compact and the applicability of the 
     compact to other persons and circumstances are not affected.

     ``ARTICLE XIII--CONSISTENCY OF LANGUAGE

       ``The validity of the arrangements and agreements consented 
     to in this compact shall not be affected by any insubstantial 
     difference in form or language as may be adopted by the 
     various states and provinces.

     ``ARTICLE XIV--AMENDMENT

       ``This compact may be amended by agreement of the party 
     jurisdictions.''.

     SEC. 2. INCONSISTENCY OF LANGUAGE.

       The validity of the arrangements consented to by this Act 
     shall not be affected by any insubstantial difference in 
     their form or language as adopted by the States and 
     provinces.

     SEC. 3. RIGHT TO ALTER, AMEND, OR REPEAL.

       The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby 
     expressly reserved.

                          ____________________