[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.
____________________