[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 115 (Tuesday, July 31, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5734-S5737]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Alexander, and Mr. Durbin):
S. 3459. A bill to amend the Department of Energy High-End Computing
Revitalization Act of 2004 to improve the high-end computing research
and development program of the Department of Energy, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Department
of Energy High-End Computing Improvement Act of 2012, along with my co-
sponsors, Senators Alexander and Durbin. This bipartisan bill addresses
the need for ongoing high performance computing and the establishment
of an exascale program within the Department of Energy, DOE.
America's leadership in high performance computing, HPC, is essential
to a vast range of national priorities in science, energy, environment,
health, and national security. For decades the U.S. was the leader in
HPC through collaborative efforts led by the DOE between national
laboratories, academia, and industry. Investments in HPC have
facilitated extraordinary scientific and technological advances that
have enabled a wide range of simulation and analysis saving time,
money, energy and fuel, which has strengthened the U.S. economy and
contributed to national security.
U.S. leadership in HPC has recently been challenged through
significant governmental investment in HPC programs in Japan, China,
South Korea, Russia, and the European Union, and the race to exascale
computing is on. Exascale computers will be able to perform 10 to the
18th power floating point operations per second making them 1000 times
more powerful than the most advanced computers today. These new
computers will require the development of new software and computer
architectures with improved power consumption, memory, and reliability.
This bipartisan bill updates the Department of Energy High-End
Computing Revitalization Act of 2004 to preserve DOE HPC and to
distinguish the exascale initiative from other high-end computing
efforts. Based on input from the DOE, appropriate funding levels are
established through this bill to support the exascale initiative
through fiscal year 2015. This bill will ensure that the U.S. remains
competitive in the race to exascale and as with previous generations of
HPC systems, the resulting technological advances will further support
Federal priorities like research and national security and will be
integrated into electronics industries strengthening high-tech
competitiveness and driving economic growth.
I would like to conclude by taking a moment to acknowledge the
exceptional efforts of a few staff members who have worked diligently
to help craft this important piece of legislation. Jonathan Epstein, a
former staff member on my Energy and Natural Resources Committee and
current staff member on the Armed Services Committee and Jennifer
Nekuda Malik, a AAAS Science Policy Fellow on my Energy and Natural
Resources Committee worked with Neena Imam, a Legislative Fellow on
Senator Alexander's staff and Tom Craig, a staff member on the
Appropriations Committee, to update the DOE's high-end computing
program to account for changes since the Department of Energy High-End
Computing Revitalization Act of 2004 and establish the exascale
computing program. I appreciate the efforts of these staff members and
I thank them for their work.
Mr. President, 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. 3459
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 ``Department of Energy High-
End Computing Improvement Act of 2012''.
SEC. 2. RENAMING OF ACT.
(a) In General.--Section 1 of the Department of Energy
High-End Computing Revitalization Act of 2004 (15 U.S.C. 5501
note; Public Law 108-423) is amended by striking ``Department
of Energy High-End Computing Revitalization Act of 2004'' and
inserting ``Department of Energy High-End Computing Act of
2012''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 976(a)(1) of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16316(1)) is amended by
striking ``Department of Energy High-End Computing
Revitalization Act of 2004'' and inserting ``Department of
Energy High-End Computing Act of 2012''.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
Section 2 of the Department of Energy High-End Computing
Act of 2012 (15 U.S.C. 5541) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (5) as
paragraphs (3) through (6), respectively;
(2) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) Department.--The term `Department' means the
Department of Energy.
``(2) Exascale computing.--The term `exascale computing'
means computing through the use of a computing machine that
performs near or above 10 to the 18th power floating point
operations per second.''; and
(3) in paragraph (6) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)), by
striking ``, acting through the Director of the Office of
Science of the Department of Energy''.
SEC. 4. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY HIGH-END COMPUTING RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
Section 3 of the Department of Energy High-End Computing
Act of 2012 (15 U.S.C. 5542) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``program'' and
inserting ``coordinated program across the Department'';
(2) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``, which may'' and
all that follows through ``architectures''; and
(3) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
``(d) Exascale Computing Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a research
program (referred to in this subsection as the `program') to
develop 1 or more exascale computing machines to promote the
missions of the Department.
``(2) Coordination.--In carrying out the program, the
Secretary shall coordinate the development of 1 or more
exascale computing machines across all applicable agencies of
the Department.
``(3) Codesign.--The Secretary shall carry out the program
through an integration of application, computer science, and
computer hardware architecture using public-private
partnerships to ensure that, to the maximum extent
practicable, 1 or more exascale computing machines are
capable of solving Department target applications and
scientific problems.
``(4) Merit review.--The development of 1 or more exascale
computing machines shall be conducted through a merit review
process.
``(5) Annual reports.--At the time of the budget submission
of the Department for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall
submit to Congress a report that describes funding for the
exascale computing program as a whole by functional element
of the Department and critical milestones.''.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 4 of the Department of Energy High-End Computing
Act of 2012 (15 U.S.C. 5543) is amended--
(1) by striking ``this Act'' and inserting ``section
3(d)''; and
[[Page S5735]]
(2) by striking paragraphs (1) through (3) and inserting
the following:
``(1) $110,000,000 for fiscal year 2013;
``(2) $220,000,000 for fiscal year 2014; and
``(3) $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2015.''.
______
By Mr. COONS (for himself, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Rubio):
S. 3460. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
for startup businesses to use a portion of the research and development
credit to offset payroll taxes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, to fuel American economic growth and job
creation, we have to make sure our tax policy is as smart as the
innovators who power our economy.
American ingenuity has always been at the core of our economic
success. Behind nearly every game-changing innovation, from the light
bulb to the search engine, has been critical research and development
that transforms an idea into a market-ready product. The challenges of
the global economy may be new, but the solution is the same--supporting
and sustaining American innovators.
That is why I joined with my friend and colleague, the Senator from
Wyoming, Senator Enzi, to draft legislation that gives innovative
startup companies the opportunity to take advantage of the successful
research and development tax credit, which would support their efforts
to invest in innovation and create jobs.
Senator Enzi and I are proud to be joined by Senator Schumer of New
York and Senator Rubio of Florida in introducing the Startup Innovation
Credit Act of 2012, which allows qualifying companies to claim the R&D
tax credit against their employment taxes instead of their income
taxes, thereby opening the credit to new companies who don't yet have
an income tax liability. We are also grateful to our colleagues in the
House, who are working to introduce a bipartisan companion bill this
week.
Over the past three decades, the research and development tax credit
has helped tens of thousands of successful American companies create
jobs by incentivizing investment in innovation. But with America's
global manufacturing competitiveness at stake, it is time Congress
shows the same type of support for entrepreneurs and young companies.
Small and startup businesses are driving our Nation's economic
recovery and creating jobs by taking risks to turn their ideas into
marketable products. Over the past few decades, firms that were younger
than 5 years old were responsible for the overwhelming majority of new
jobs in this country.
The tax code is a powerful tool in the government's toolbox, but tax
credits can't help emerging companies that don't yet have tax
liabilities. That takes the R&D tax credit off the table for countless
promising startups and small businesses.
Over the last two years, I have talked with dozens of business
leaders and experts in tax policy to refine an idea to create a new
small business innovation credit that would help those young companies.
My commitment to this concept has only strengthened since I introduced
a version of it in my very first bill as a Senator, the Job Creation
Through Innovation Act. This work continued, along with Senator Rubio,
in the subsequent AGREE Act and Startup Act 2.0.
The reason I am so doggedly pursuing this idea is because it is
critical for young, innovative companies in my home state of Delaware.
Take, for example, DeNovix, a small company based in Wilmington. With
just six employees, they design, manufacture and sell laboratory
equipment that helps scientists innovate and achieve results. As a
brand-new company, all of DeNovix' products are in the research and
development phase. So at this point, they can't take advantage of the
R&D tax credit. A new, innovative company, shut out of support they
need at the time they need it most. That seems counterproductive for
our economy. So let us fix it. Under the Startup Innovation Credit Act
of 2012, DeNovix and companies like them across Delaware and across the
country could grow and create jobs with the help of the R&D tax credit.
We can't let tough economic times slow down the power of American
ingenuity, especially when history has taught us that now is exactly
the time we need to be investing in our innovators. More than half of
our Fortune 500 companies were launched during a recession or bear
market, so a small business founded this year could become the next
General Electric or DuPont if it gets the support it needs.
America's researchers, business leaders, innovators and entrepreneurs
are already working to help create jobs and ensure American
competitiveness in the global economy. We just have to support and
sustain their hard work, and we cannot take the rest of the year off
just because there is an election coming up. Even in this difficult,
partisan atmosphere, we have to find ways to work together and get
things done.
Innovation will drive American economic competitiveness for
generations to come, and our job is to help our innovators and
entrepreneurs do their jobs. I urge my colleagues to join Senators
Enzi, Schumer, Rubio and I in strong support of the Startup Innovation
Credit Act of 2012.
______
By Mr. BROWN of Ohio (for himself, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Kerry, Mr.
Blumenthal, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mr. Begich):
S. 3461. A bill to amend title IV of the Public Health Service Act to
provide for a National Pediatric Research Network, including with
respect to pediatric rare diseases or conditions; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, over the last few years, our
country has grappled with rising health care costs.
While we are making strides, there is one area of health care that is
lagging behind: pediatric research.
Children comprise 20 percept of the U.S. population, but only about 5
percent of the National Institutes of Health, NIH, extramural research
is dedicated to pediatric research.
If this rate of investment is not expanded, discoveries of new
treatments and therapies for some of the most devastating childhood
diseases and conditions will be hindered, and the next generation of
researchers will be discouraged from entering into the field of
pediatrics.
That is why I have introduced the National Pediatric Research Network
Act. This act seeks to reverse this trend by strengthening and
expanding NIH's investments into pediatric research.
This expanded investment will help accelerate new discoveries and
directly affect the health and well-being of children throughout our
Nation.
My home State of Ohio is home to world-class researchers at topnotch
research hospitals and universities.
We must give these institutions, including Cincinnati Children's,
Rainbow Babies, Children's Hospital, and Nationwide Children's
Hospitals, the resources to partner with other leading researchers
across the country.
This legislation creates such an opportunity.
The centerpiece of the legislation will be the authorization of up to
20 National Pediatric Research Consortia.
They are modeled after the exemplary National Cancer Institute, NCI,
Centers to help finance efficient and effective, inter-institutional
pediatric research.
While NIH is working to advance translational research through
Clinical & Translational Science Awards, those centers are far-reaching
and focused primarily on adult diseases and clinical research. In
contrast, these pediatric centers would be solely dedicated toward
pediatric research.
Unlike existing NIH initiatives in which only the largest research
institutions receive funds, the legislation envisions that each center
will operate in a ``hub and spoke'' framework with one central academic
center coordinating research and/or clinical work at numerous auxiliary
sites. Encouraging collaboration can help ensure efficiency.
Furthermore, this legislation will encourage research in pediatric
rare diseases.
While each rare disease or disorder affects a small patient
population, it is important to note that 7,000 rare diseases--such as
epidermolysis bullosa, sickle cell anemia, spinal muscular atrophy,
Down syndrome, Duchene's muscular dystrophy, and many childhood
cancers--affect a combined 30 million Americans and their families.
[[Page S5736]]
What is even more devastating is the fact that children with rare
genetic diseases account for more than half of the rare disease
population in the United States.
As anyone with a rare disease or disorder knows, these patient
populations face unique challenges.
It is my hope the National Pediatric Research Network Act will
increase our understanding of pediatric diseases, improve treatment and
therapies, and create better health care outcomes for our nation's
children.
I thank Senators Wicker, Whitehouse, Kerry, Blumenthal, and Begich
for joining me as original cosponsors.
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Kohl):
S. 3462. A bill to provide anti-retaliation protections for antitrust
whistleblowers; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Grassley
and today introduce the Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act. This
legislation will provide important protections to employees who come
forward and disclose to law enforcement price fixing and other criminal
antitrust behavior that harm consumers. Senator Grassley and I have a
long history of working together on whistleblower issues, and I am glad
we can continue this partnership today.
Whistleblowers are instrumental in alerting the public, Congress, and
law enforcement to wrongdoing. In many cases, their willingness to step
forward has resulted in important reforms and even saved lives.
Congress must encourage employees with reasonable beliefs about
criminal activity to report such fraud or abuse by offering meaningful
protection to those who blow the whistle rather than leaving them
vulnerable to reprisals.
The legislation we introduce today was inspired by a recent report
and recommendation from the Government Accountability Office which,
based on interviews with key stakeholders, found widespread support for
anti-retaliatory protection in criminal antitrust cases. It is modeled
on the successful anti-retaliation provisions of the Sarbanes Oxley
Act, and is carefully drafted to ensure that whistleblowers have no
economic incentive to bring forth false claims.
I have long supported vigorous enforcement of the antitrust laws,
which have been called the ``Magna Carta of free enterprise.'' Today's
legislation is a necessary complement to them. It has bipartisan
support and was recommended by the Government Accountability Office. I
urge the Senate to quickly take up and pass this important legislation.
Mr. President, 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. 3462
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 ``Criminal Antitrust Anti-
Retaliation Act''.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO ACPERA.
The Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act
of 2004 (Public Law 108-237; 15 U.S.C. 1 note) is amended by
adding after section 215 the following:
``SEC. 216. ANTI-RETALIATION PROTECTION FOR WHISTLEBLOWERS.
``(a) Whistleblower Protections for Employees, Contractors,
Subcontractors, and Agents.--
``(1) In general.--No person, or any officer, employee,
contractor, subcontractor or agent of such person, may
discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or in any other
manner discriminate against a whistleblower in the terms and
conditions of employment because--
``(A) the whistleblower provided or caused to be provided
to the person or the Federal Government information relating
to--
``(i) any violation of, or any act or omission the
whistleblower reasonably believes to be a violation of the
antitrust laws; or
``(ii) any violation of, or any act or omission the
whistleblower reasonably believes to be a violation of
another criminal law committed in conjunction with a
potential violation of the antitrust laws or in conjunction
with an investigation by the Department of Justice of a
potential violation of the antitrust laws; or
``(B) the whistleblower filed, caused to be filed,
testified, participated in, or otherwise assisted an
investigation or a proceeding filed or about to be filed
(with any knowledge of the employer) relating to--
``(i) any violation of, or any act or omission the
whistleblower reasonably believes to be a violation of the
antitrust laws; or
``(ii) any violation of, or any act or omission the
whistleblower reasonably believes to be a violation of
another criminal law committed in conjunction with a
potential violation of the antitrust laws or in conjunction
with an investigation by the Department of Justice of a
potential violation of the antitrust laws.
``(2) Limitation on protections.--Paragraph (1) shall not
apply to any whistleblower if--
``(A) the whistleblower planned and initiated a violation
or attempted violation of the antitrust laws;
``(B) the whistleblower planned and initiated a violation
or attempted violation of another criminal law in conjunction
with a violation or attempted violation of the antitrust
laws; or
``(C) the whistleblower planned and initiated an
obstruction or attempted obstruction of an investigation by
the Department of Justice of a violation of the antitrust
laws.
``(3) Definitions.--In the section:
``(A) Person.--The term `person' has the same meaning as in
subsection (a) of the first section of the Clayton Act (15
U.S.C. 12(a)).
``(B) Antitrust laws.--The term `antitrust laws' means
section 1 or 3 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1, 3) or similar
State law.
``(C) Whistleblower.--The term `whistleblower' means an
employee, contractor, subcontractor, or agent protected from
discrimination under paragraph (1).
``(b) Enforcement Action.--
``(1) In general.--A whistleblower who alleges discharge or
other discrimination by any person in violation of subsection
(a) may seek relief under subsection (c) by--
``(A) filing a complaint with the Secretary of Labor; or
``(B) if the Secretary has not issued a final decision
within 180 days of the filing of the complaint and there is
no showing that such delay is due to the bad faith of the
claimant, bringing an action at law or equity for de novo
review in the appropriate district court of the United
States, which shall have jurisdiction over such an action
without regard to the amount in controversy.
``(2) Procedure.--
``(A) In general.--A complaint filed with the Secretary of
Labor under paragraph (1)(A) shall be governed under the
rules and procedures set forth in section 42121(b)of title
49, United States Code.
``(B) Exception.--Notification made under section
42121(b)(1) of title 49, United States Code, shall be made to
the person named in the complaint and to the employer.
``(C) Burdens of proof.--A complaint filed with the
Secretary of Labor under paragraph (1) shall be governed by
the legal burdens of proof set forth in section 42121(b) of
title 49, United States Code.
``(D) Statute of limitations.--A complaint under paragraph
(1)(A) shall be filed with the Secretary of Labor not later
than 180 days after the date on which the violation occurs.
``(E) Civil actions to enforce.--If a person fails to
comply with an order or preliminary order issued by the
Secretary of Labor pursuant to the procedures in section
42121(b), the Secretary of Labor or the person on whose
behalf the order was issued may bring a civil action to
enforce the order in the district court of the United States
for the judicial district in which the violation occurred.
``(c) Remedies.--
``(1) In general.--A whistleblower prevailing in any action
under subsection (b)(1) shall be entitled to all relief
necessary to make the whistleblower whole.
``(2) Compensatory damages.--Relief for any action under
paragraph (1) shall include--
``(A) reinstatement with the same seniority status that the
whistleblower would have had, but for the discrimination;
``(B) the amount of back pay, with interest; and
``(C) compensation for any special damages sustained as a
result of the discrimination including litigation costs,
expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney's fees.
``(d) Rights Retained by Whistleblowers.--Nothing in this
section shall be deemed to diminish the rights, privileges,
or remedies of any whistleblower under any Federal or State
law, or under any collective bargaining agreement.''.
______
By Mr. FRANKEN (for himself, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Rockefeller, Ms.
Collins, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Blumenthal, and Mr. Brown
of Ohio):
S. 3463. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
reduce the incidence of diabetes among Medicare beneficiaries; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my
colleagues, Senator Franken, Senator Lugar, Senator Collins, Senator
Shaheen, Senator Wyden, Senator Blumenthal, and Senator Brown of Ohio,
to introduce an important piece of bipartisan legislation, the Medicare
Diabetes Prevention Act of 2012. Our legislation makes a wise
investment in seniors' health by extending the proven
[[Page S5737]]
success of the National Diabetes Prevention Program to Medicare. Nearly
26 million American adults have diabetes, and if this disturbing trend
doesn't stop, over half of the adult population will either have Type 2
diabetes or its precursor, ``prediabetes,'' by 2020.
Sadly, my home State of West Virginia has one of the highest diabetes
rates in the Nation. In 2009, approximately 174,000 adults, which is 11
percent of West Virginia adults, had diabetes. According to Centers for
Disease Control estimates, as many as 50 percent of the nearly 380,000
people with Medicare in West Virginia may be at risk of developing this
serious, but preventable, illness. If current trends continue, one in
three children born in West Virginia after the year 2000 will develop
diabetes within his or her lifetime and people with diabetes risk
developing terrible complications down the road, including heart
disease, stroke, blindness, and amputations.
Diabetes is also one of the main cost drivers in our health care
system. The direct economic burden of diabetes was $116 billion for
medical expenses and indirect costs totaled $58 billion due to
disability, work loss, or premature death in 2007. The costs associated
with this preventable disease for Medicare beneficiaries are expected
to grow to $2 trillion over the 2011 to 2020 period.
We simply cannot stand idly by in the face of such overwhelming
statistics--and fortunately, there is a way to prevent Type 2 diabetes.
The National Diabetes Prevention Program, NDPP, is an innovative
approach that has demonstrated its effects in preventing the onset of
Type 2 diabetes. The NDPP is a proven, community-based intervention
that focuses on changing lifestyle behaviors of prediabetic overweight
or obese adults through activities that improve dietary choices and
increase physical activity in a group setting. In a large-scale
clinical trial that has been replicated in community settings, NDPP
successfully reduced the onset of diabetes by 58 percent overall and 71
percent in adults over 60.
Because of the impressive success of the National Diabetes Prevention
Program, I believe our seniors should have access to its benefits. The
Medicare Diabetes Prevention Act of 2012 will help seniors prevent Type
2 diabetes by allowing Medicare to provide the National Diabetes
Prevention Program through community settings like the YMCA, local
health departments, or even the local church, reaching people with
Medicare wherever they live. In the past, physicians have had few tools
for their patients who are found to be at risk of diabetes. Under this
bill, if a senior is found at risk for diabetes, for example, through
their annual wellness visit, their doctor will be able to refer them to
an NDPP program in their area.
Unlike Medicare, which needs a Federal legislative change to cover
this program, State Medicaid programs already have the authority to pay
for this innovative initiative, and it is my hope that more states will
do so. By 2020, Medicaid is expected to cover 13 million people with
diabetes and about 9 million people who may have pre-diabetes, and
states will spend an estimated $83 billion on individuals with diabetes
or pre-diabetes. The National Diabetes Prevention program presents an
opportunity for States to reduce the incidence of diabetes among
individuals enrolled in their Medicaid programs, an especially
strategic investment when combined with the expansion of the Medicaid
program under health reform.
The coverage of proven solutions under Medicare is nothing new. Yet,
rather than providing a traditional drug or procedure, NDPP allows at-
risk individuals to change their lifestyles through a community
intervention. Implementing NDPP is a unique response to the alarming
and escalating rates of diabetes. This public health solution has
demonstrated tangible results that can enable our country to prevent
diabetes, while reducing health care costs. The NDPP is a strategic and
cost-effective intervention that costs less than $500 per person to
deliver, compared to the estimated $15,000 per year spent on each
Medicare beneficiary with diabetes. According to the Urban Institute,
implementing the NDPP nationally could save $191 billion over the next
10 years, with 75 percent of the savings, $142.9 billion, going to the
Medicare and Medicaid programs.
Better yet, the National Diabetes Prevention Program is a job
creator, bringing diabetes trainers to more communities nationwide to
provide the program. West Virginia has already received funding from
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through a Community
Transformation Grant that will allow the State to train at least 100
community health workers to help disseminate the Diabetes Prevention
Program in the State over the next 5 years.
The Medicare Diabetes Prevention Act has been endorsed by the
American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association, American
Public Health Association, National Association of Chronic Disease
Directors, National Association of State Long-Term Care Ombudsman
Programs, National Council on Aging, Novo Nordisk, Trust for America's
Health, the YMCA of the USA, and State YMCA affiliates in over 45
States. With so many Americans at risk for developing diabetes and its
potentially severe complications, today is the right time for Medicare
to extend the proven National Diabetes Prevention Program as a covered
benefit to seniors.
I urge my colleagues to support this timely and important piece of
legislation.
______
By Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota:
S. 3464. A bill to amend the Mni Wiconi Project Act of 1988 to
facilitate completion of the Mni Wiconi Rural Water Supply System, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, today I introduced
legislation to facilitate completion of the Mni Wiconi Rural Water
System. The Mni Wiconi Project provides quality drinking water to three
Indian Reservations and a non-tribal rural water system in western
South Dakota that have historically faced insufficient and, in too many
cases, unsafe drinking water.
I have been involved with this project for the entirety of my 25 year
congressional career, including sponsoring authorizing legislation that
was ultimately enacted in 1988. In authorizing the project, Congress
found that the United States has a trust responsibility to ensure that
adequate and safe water supplies are available to meet the economic,
environmental, water supply, and public health needs of the Pine Ridge
Indian Reservation, Rosebud Indian Reservation, and Lower Brule Indian
Reservation. With treated drinking water from the Missouri River now
reaching most of the three reservations, as well as the 7 county area
of the West River/Lyman-Jones Rural Water System, we are very close to
completing this critically important project.
Unfortunately, appropriations have failed to keep pace with projected
timelines, and additional costs have cut into construction funding.
Accordingly, the project requires an increase in the cost ceiling and
extension of its authorization in order to be completed and serve the
design population. Without an adjustment to the cost ceiling, some
portions of the Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System and Rosebud
Sioux Rural Water System will remain incomplete. The legislation I have
introduced today addresses this shortfall and other important aspects
of the project. The legislation also directs other Federal agencies
that support rural water development to assist the Bureau of
Reclamation in improving and repairing existing community water systems
that are important components of the project.
Our Federal responsibility to address the tremendous need for
adequate and safe drinking water supplies on the Pine Ridge, Rosebud
and Lower Brule Indian Reservations remains as important today as it
was 25 years ago. I look forward to working with my colleagues to
advance this modest but important legislation.
____________________