[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3346-3362]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. LAUTENBERG:
  S. 491. A bill to enable America's schools to use their computer 
hardware to increase student achievement and prepare students for the 
21st century workplace; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.


               the ``education for the 21st century act''

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce ``E-21''--the 
Education for the 21st Century Act.
  The E-21 Act will help ensure that all middle school graduates attain 
basic computer literacy skills that will prepare them for high school 
and beyond, and ultimately, for the 21st Century workplace. The E-21 
Act will also allow all school districts to obtain and utilize the 
latest high-quality educational software, free of charge.
  Mr. President, the first piece of legislation I introduced in the 
Senate was to provide financial assistance to introduce computers into 
schools, to help students learn and expand their horizons. That was in 
1983. Back then, it was the exceptional school that even had a 
computer. It was an unusual teacher or student who knew how to use one.
  That legislation was enacted into law. Along with other resources, it 
helped bring computers into our schools as part of everyday learning.
  Mr. President, as many of my colleagues know, I got my start in the 
computing business. Back then, computers filled large rooms and were so 
expensive that only the largest corporations could afford their own 
computing centers. Today, even more powerful computers sit on a desktop 
in millions of homes, schools and businesses across the nation.
  Mr. President, we've made great strides toward introducing computers 
into schools, but too many of these computers are not being utilized to 
their potential due to lack of updated computer training for teachers.
  Mr. President, a recent study by the Educational Testing Service 
confirmed that computers do increase student achievement and improve a 
school's learning climate. However--and this is critical--the study 
specified that to achieve those results, teachers must be appropriately 
trained and use effective educational software programs. Otherwise, 
these computers become mere furniture in a classroom.
  To boost student achievement through computers and technology, my 
``Education for the 21st Century Act'' will provide up to $30 million 
per year to train a team of teachers from every middle school in the 
nation in the most up-to-date computing technology. These Teacher 
Technology leaders could then share their training with the rest of the 
faculty in their schools, so all teachers are ready to pass these 
skills on to their students.
  Mr. President, the E-21 Act will also create national educational 
software competitions, open to high school and college students, to 
work in partnership with university faculty and professional software 
developers. The best of these software packages would be available 
free-of-charge over the Internet through the Department of Education's 
web page.
  Mr. President, I want to make clear to my colleagues that this 
emphasis on computer training is not at the expense of the fundamental, 
basic skills that underlie education: reading, writing and arithmetic. 
It's still important to master these traditional basics. But we should 
also add a ``new basic'' to the list--computer literacy. Americans will 
need those skills to compete in the 21st Century.
  Mr. President, this proposal is part of President Clinton's FY 2000 
Budget, and as Ranking Member of the Budget Committee and a member of 
the Appropriations Committee, I will work to see that it is funded for 
years to come.
  Mr. President, as a businessman who got his start at the beginning of 
the computing age, I am proud to see the way our nation has led the 
world in computer technology. I want to make sure that we continue to 
lead--through the second computer century--the 21st Century.
  I therefore ask my colleagues to support ``E-21''--the Education for 
the 21st Century Act.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 491

       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 ``Education for the 21st 
     Century (e-21) Act''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       It is the purpose of this Act to enable America's schools 
     to use their computer hardware to increase student 
     achievement and prepare students for the 21st century 
     workplace.

     SEC. 3. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Establishing computer literacy for middle school 
     graduates will help ensure that students are receiving the 
     skills needed for advanced education and for securing 
     employment in the 21st century.
       (2) Computer literacy skills, such as information 
     gathering, critical analysis and communication with the 
     latest technology, build upon the necessary basics of 
     reading, writing, mathematics, and other core subject areas.
       (3) According to a study conducted by the Educational 
     Testing Service (ETS), eighth grade mathematics students 
     whose teachers used computers for simulations and 
     applications outperformed students whose teachers did not use 
     such educational technology.
       (4) Although an ever increasing amount of schools are 
     obtaining the latest computer

[[Page 3347]]

     hardware, schools will not be able to take advantage of the 
     benefits of computer-based learning unless teachers are 
     effectively trained in the latest educational software 
     applications.
       (5) The Educational Testing Service (ETS) study showed that 
     students whose teachers received training in computers 
     performed better than other students. The study also found 
     that schools that provide teachers with professional 
     development in computers enjoyed higher staff morale and 
     lower absenteeism rates.
       (6) Some of the most exciting applications in educational 
     technology are being developed not only by commercial 
     software companies, but also by university faculty and 
     secondary school and college students. The fruit of this 
     academic talent should be channeled more effectively to 
     benefit our Nation's elementary and secondary schools.

     SEC. 4. MIDDLE SCHOOL COMPUTER LITERACY CHALLENGE.

       (a) Grants Authorized.--The Secretary of Education is 
     authorized to award grants to States that integrate into the 
     State curriculum the goal of making all middle school 
     graduates in the State technology literate.
       (b) Uses.--Grants awarded under this section shall be used 
     for teacher training in technology, with an emphasis on 
     programs that prepare 1 or more teachers in each middle 
     school in the State to become technology leaders who then 
     serve as experts and train other teachers.
       (c) Matching Funds.--Each State shall encourage schools 
     that receive assistance under this section to provide 
     matching funds, with respect to the cost of teacher training 
     in technology to be assisted under this section, in order to 
     enhance the impact of the teacher training and to help ensure 
     that all middle school graduates in the State are computer 
     literate.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000 for 
     each of the fiscal years 2000 through 2004.

     SEC. 5. HIGH-QUALITY EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE FOR ALL SCHOOLS.

       (a) Competition Authorized.--The Secretary of Education is 
     authorized to award grants, on a competitive basis, to 
     secondary school and college students working with university 
     faculty, software developers, and experts in educational 
     technology for the development of high-quality educational 
     software and Internet web sites by such students, faculty, 
     developers, and experts.
       (b) Recognition.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Education shall recognize 
     outstanding educational software and Internet web sites 
     developed with assistance provided under this section.
       (2) Certificates.--The President is requested to, and the 
     Secretary shall, issue an official certificate signed by the 
     President and Secretary, to each student and faculty member 
     who develops outstanding educational software or Internet web 
     sites recognized under this section.
       (c) Focus.--The educational software or Internet web sites 
     that are recognized under this section shall focus on core 
     curriculum areas.
       (d) Priority.--
       (1) First year.--For the first year that the Secretary 
     awards grants under this section, the Secretary shall give 
     priority to awarding grants for the development of 
     educational software or Internet web sites in the areas of 
     mathematics, science, and reading.
       (2) Second and third years.--For the second and third years 
     that the Secretary awards grants under this section, the 
     Secretary shall give priority to awarding grants for the 
     development of educational software or Internet web sites in 
     the areas described in paragraph (1) and in social studies, 
     the humanities, and the arts.
       (e) Judges.--The Secretary shall designate official judges 
     to recognize outstanding educational software or Internet web 
     sites assisted under this section.
       (f) Downloading.--Educational software recognized under 
     this section shall be made available to local educational 
     agencies for free downloading from the Department of 
     Education's Internet web site. Internet web sites recognized 
     under this section shall be accessible to any user of the 
     World Wide Web.
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for 
     each of the fiscal years 2000 through 2004.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Warner, Mr. Robb, 
        and Mr. Santorum):
  S. 492. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Act to assist in 
the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.


               the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act of 1999

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today, I am introducing along with a 
number of my colleagues, a bill to continue and enhance the efforts to 
clean up the Chesapeake Bay. Joining me in sponsoring this bill are my 
colleagues from Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, Senators 
Mikulski, Warner, Robb, and Santorum.
  Mr. President, the Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the 
United States and the key to the ecological and economic health of the 
mid-Atlantic region. The Bay, in fact, is one of the world's great 
natural resources. We tend to take it for granted because it is right 
here at hand, so to speak, and I know many Members of this body have 
enjoyed the Chesapeake Bay. The Bay provides thousands of jobs for the 
people in this region and is an important component in the national 
economy. The Bay is a major commercial waterway and shipping center for 
the region and for much of the eastern United States. It supports a 
world-class fishery that produces a significant portion of the 
country's fin fish and shellfish catch. The Bay and its waters also 
maintain an enormous tourism and recreation industry.
  The Chesapeake Bay is a complex system. It draws its life-sustaining 
waters from a watershed that covers more than 64,000 square miles and 
parts of six states. The Bay's relationship to the people, industries, 
and communities in those six states and beyond is also complex and 
multifaceted.
  I could continue talking about these aspects of the Bay, but my 
fellow Senators are aware of the Bay's importance and have consistently 
regarded the protection and enhancement of the quality of the 
Chesapeake Bay as an important national objective.
  Through the concerted efforts of public and private organizations, we 
have learned to understand the complexities of the Bay and we have 
learned what it takes to maintain the system that sustains us. The 
Chesapeake Bay Program is an extraordinary example of how local, State, 
regional, and Federal agencies can work with citizens and private 
organizations to manage complicated, vital, natural resources. Indeed, 
the Chesapeake Bay Program serves as a model across the country and 
around the world.
  When the Bay began to experience serious unprecedented declines in 
water quality and living resources in the 1970s, the people in my state 
suffered. We lost thousands of jobs in the fishing industry. We lost 
much of the wilderness that defined the watershed. We began to 
appreciate for the first time the profound impact that human activity 
could have on the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. We began to recognize that 
untreated sewage, deforestation, toxic chemicals, agricultural runoff, 
and increased development were causing a degradation of water quality, 
the loss of wildlife, and elimination of vital habitat. We also began 
to recognize that these negative impacts were only part of a cycle that 
could eventually impact other economic and human health interests.
  Fortunately, over the last two decades we have come to understand 
that humans can also have a positive effect on the environment. We have 
learned that we can, if we are committed, help repair natural systems 
so that they continue to provide economic opportunities and enhance the 
quality of life for future generations.
  We now treat sewage before it enters our waters. We banned toxic 
chemicals that were killing wildlife. We have initiated programs to 
reduce nonpoint source pollution, and we have taken aggressive steps to 
restore depleted fisheries.
  The States of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania deserve much of 
the credit for undertaking many of the actions that have put the Bay 
and its watershed on the road to recovery. All three States have had 
major cleanup programs. They have made significant commitments in terms 
of resources. It is an important priority item on the agendas of the 
Bay States. Governors have been strongly committed, as have State 
legislatures and the public. There are a number of private 
organizations--the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, for example--which do 
extraordinary good work in this area.
  But there has been invaluable involvement by the Federal Government 
as well. The cooperation and attention of Federal agencies has been 
essential. Without the Federal Clean Water Act, the Federal ban on DDT, 
and EPA's watershed-wide coordination of Chesapeake Bay restoration and 
cleanup activities, we would not have been able to

[[Page 3348]]

bring about the concerted effort, the real partnership, that is 
succeeding improving the water quality of the Bay and is succeeding in 
bringing back many of the fish and wildlife species.
  The Chesapeake Bay is getting cleaner, but we cannot afford to be 
complacent. There are still tremendous stresses on the Bay. This is a 
fast-growing area of the country, with an ever increasing population, 
development, and continuous changes in land use.
  We need to remain vigilant in continuing to address the needs of the 
Bay restoration effort. The hard work, investment, and commitment, at 
all levels, which has brought gains over the last three decades, must 
not be allowed to lapse or falter.
  The measure I am introducing today reauthorizes the Bay program and 
builds upon the Federal Government's past role in the Chesapeake Bay 
Program and the highly successful Federal-State-local partnership to 
which I made reference. The bill also establishes simple agency 
disclosure and budget coordination mechanisms to help ensure that 
information about Federal Bay-related grants and projects are readily 
available to the scientific community and the public.
  As I mentioned before, the Chesapeake Bay Program is a model of 
efficient and effective coordination. Still, there is always room for 
improvement as experience informs and enlightens our judgments. While 
coordination between the various levels of government has been 
exemplary, coordination among Federal agencies can be strengthened. 
This legislation begins to develop a better coordination mechanism to 
help ensure that all Federal agency programs are accounted for.
  In addition, this bill requires the Environmental Protection Agency 
to establish a ``Small Watershed Grants Program'' for the Chesapeake 
Bay region. These grants will help organizations and local governments 
launch a variety of locally-designed and locally-implemented projects 
to restore relatively small pieces of the larger Chesapeake Bay 
watershed. By empowering local agencies and community groups to 
identify and solve local problems, this grant program will promote 
stewardship across the region and improve the whole by strengthening 
the parts.
  This bill was carefully crafted with the advise, counsel, and 
assistance of many hard working organizations in the Chesapeake Bay 
region, including the Chesapeake Bay Commission, the Chesapeake Bay 
Foundation, The Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay and various offices 
within the state governments of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.
  Mr. President, it is the hope of the cosponsors that this bill will 
ultimately be incorporated into a larger piece of legislation that is 
due to be reauthorized or considered this year. However, if such 
legislation is not considered or should become stalled in the 
legislative process--the larger legislation covers a wide range of 
issues--it is our intention to try to move forward with this 
legislation separately.
  The Chesapeake Bay cleanup effort has been a major bipartisan 
undertaking in this body. It has consistently, over the years, been 
strongly supported by virtually all members of the Senate. I strongly 
urge my colleagues to join with us in supporting this legislation and 
contributing to the improvement and the enhancement of one of our 
Nation's most valuable and treasued natural resources.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the 
bill, a section-by-section analysis, and letters of support of the bill 
be inserted in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 492

       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 ``Chesapeake Bay Restoration 
     Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure and a 
     resource of worldwide significance;
       (2) over many years, the productivity and water quality of 
     the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed were diminished by 
     pollution, excessive sedimentation, shoreline erosion, the 
     impacts of population growth and development in the 
     Chesapeake Bay watershed, and other factors;
       (3) the Federal Government (acting through the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency), the 
     Governor of the State of Maryland, the Governor of the 
     Commonwealth of Virginia, the Governor of the Commonwealth of 
     Pennsylvania, the Chairperson of the Chesapeake Bay 
     Commission, and the Mayor of the District of Columbia, as 
     Chesapeake Bay Agreement signatories, have committed to a 
     comprehensive cooperative program to achieve improved water 
     quality and improvements in the productivity of living 
     resources of the Bay;
       (4) the cooperative program described in paragraph (3) 
     serves as a national and international model for the 
     management of estuaries; and
       (5) there is a need to expand Federal support for 
     monitoring, management, and restoration activities in the 
     Chesapeake Bay and the tributaries of the Bay in order to 
     meet and further the original and subsequent goals and 
     commitments of the Chesapeake Bay Program.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to expand and strengthen cooperative efforts to restore 
     and protect the Chesapeake Bay; and
       (2) to achieve the goals established in the Chesapeake Bay 
     Agreement.

     SEC. 3. CHESAPEAKE BAY.

       The Federal Water Pollution Control Act is amended by 
     striking section 117 (33 U.S.C. 1267) and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 117. CHESAPEAKE BAY.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Administrative cost.--The term `administrative cost' 
     means the cost of salaries and fringe benefits incurred in 
     administering a grant under this section.
       ``(2) Chesapeake bay agreement.--The term `Chesapeake Bay 
     Agreement' means the formal, voluntary agreements executed to 
     achieve the goal of restoring and protecting the Chesapeake 
     Bay ecosystem and the living resources of the Chesapeake Bay 
     ecosystem and signed by the Chesapeake Executive Council.
       ``(3) Chesapeake bay ecosystem.--The term `Chesapeake Bay 
     ecosystem' means the ecosystem of the Chesapeake Bay and its 
     watershed.
       ``(4) Chesapeake bay program.--The term `Chesapeake Bay 
     Program' means the program directed by the Chesapeake 
     Executive Council in accordance with the Chesapeake Bay 
     Agreement.
       ``(5) Chesapeake executive council.--The term `Chesapeake 
     Executive Council' means the signatories to the Chesapeake 
     Bay Agreement.
       ``(6) Signatory jurisdiction.--The term `signatory 
     jurisdiction' means a jurisdiction of a signatory to the 
     Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
       ``(b) Continuation of Chesapeake Bay Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--In cooperation with the Chesapeake 
     Executive Council (and as a member of the Council), the 
     Administrator shall continue the Chesapeake Bay Program.
       ``(2) Program office.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall maintain in the 
     Environmental Protection Agency a Chesapeake Bay Program 
     Office.
       ``(B) Function.--The Chesapeake Bay Program Office shall 
     provide support to the Chesapeake Executive Council by--
       ``(i) implementing and coordinating science, research, 
     modeling, support services, monitoring, data collection, and 
     other activities that support the Chesapeake Bay Program;
       ``(ii) developing and making available, through 
     publications, technical assistance, and other appropriate 
     means, information pertaining to the environmental quality 
     and living resources of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem;
       ``(iii) in cooperation with appropriate Federal, State, and 
     local authorities, assisting the signatories to the 
     Chesapeake Bay Agreement in developing and implementing 
     specific action plans to carry out the responsibilities of 
     the signatories to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement;
       ``(iv) coordinating the actions of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency with the actions of the appropriate 
     officials of other Federal agencies and State and local 
     authorities in developing strategies to--

       ``(I) improve the water quality and living resources in the 
     Chesapeake Bay ecosystem; and
       ``(II) obtain the support of the appropriate officials of 
     the agencies and authorities in achieving the objectives of 
     the Chesapeake Bay Agreement; and

       ``(v) implementing outreach programs for public 
     information, education, and participation to foster 
     stewardship of the resources of the Chesapeake Bay.
       ``(c) Interagency Agreements.--The Administrator may enter 
     into an interagency agreement with a Federal agency to carry 
     out this section.
       ``(d) Technical Assistance and Assistance Grants.--

[[Page 3349]]

       ``(1) In general.--In cooperation with the Chesapeake 
     Executive Council, the Administrator may provide technical 
     assistance, and assistance grants, to nonprofit 
     organizations, State and local governments, colleges, 
     universities, and interstate agencies to carry out this 
     section, subject to such terms and conditions as the 
     Administrator considers appropriate.
       ``(2) Federal share.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the Federal share of an assistance grant provided under 
     paragraph (1) shall be determined by the Administrator in 
     accordance with guidance issued by the Administrator.
       ``(B) Small watershed grants program.--The Federal share of 
     an assistance grant provided under paragraph (1) to carry out 
     an implementing activity under subsection (g)(2) shall not 
     exceed 75 percent of eligible project costs, as determined by 
     the Administrator.
       ``(3) Non-federal share.--An assistance grant under 
     paragraph (1) shall be provided on the condition that non-
     Federal sources provide the remainder of eligible project 
     costs, as determined by the Administrator.
       ``(4) Administrative costs.--Administrative costs shall not 
     exceed 10 percent of the annual grant award.
       ``(e) Implementation and Monitoring Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--If a signatory jurisdiction has approved 
     and committed to implement all or substantially all aspects 
     of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, on the request of the chief 
     executive of the jurisdiction, the Administrator--
       ``(A) shall make a grant to the jurisdiction for the 
     purpose of implementing the management mechanisms established 
     under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, subject to such terms and 
     conditions as the Administrator considers appropriate;
       ``(B) may make a grant to a signatory jurisdiction for the 
     purpose of monitoring the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.
       ``(2) Proposals.--
       ``(A) In general.--A signatory jurisdiction described in 
     paragraph (1) may apply for a grant under this subsection for 
     a fiscal year by submitting to the Administrator a 
     comprehensive proposal to implement management mechanisms 
     established under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
       ``(B) Contents.--A proposal under subparagraph (A) shall 
     include--
       ``(i) a description of proposed management mechanisms that 
     the jurisdiction commits to take within a specified time 
     period, such as reducing or preventing pollution in the 
     Chesapeake Bay and its watershed or meeting applicable water 
     quality standards or established goals and objectives under 
     the Chesapeake Bay Agreement; and
       ``(ii) the estimated cost of the actions proposed to be 
     taken during the fiscal year.
       ``(3) Approval.--If the Administrator finds that the 
     proposal is consistent with the Chesapeake Bay Agreement and 
     the national goals established under section 101(a), the 
     Administrator may approve the proposal for an award.
       ``(4) Federal share.--The Federal share of an 
     implementation grant under this subsection shall not exceed 
     50 percent of the cost of implementing the management 
     mechanisms during the fiscal year.
       ``(5) Non-federal share.--An implementation grant under 
     this subsection shall be made on the condition that non-
     Federal sources provide the remainder of the costs of 
     implementing the management mechanisms during the fiscal 
     year.
       ``(6) Administrative costs.--Administrative costs shall not 
     exceed 10 percent of the annual grant award.
       ``(7) Reporting.--On or before October 1 of each fiscal 
     year, the Administrator shall make available to the public a 
     document that lists and describes, in the greatest 
     practicable degree of detail--
       ``(A) all projects and activities funded for the fiscal 
     year;
       ``(B) the goals and objectives of projects funded for the 
     previous fiscal year; and
       ``(C) the net benefits of projects funded for previous 
     fiscal years.
       ``(f) Federal Facilities and Budget Coordination.--
       ``(1) Subwatershed planning and restoration.--A Federal 
     agency that owns or operates a facility (as defined by the 
     Administrator) within the Chesapeake Bay watershed shall 
     participate in regional and subwatershed planning and 
     restoration programs.
       ``(2) Compliance with agreement.--The head of each Federal 
     agency that owns or occupies real property in the Chesapeake 
     Bay watershed shall ensure that the property, and actions 
     taken by the agency with respect to the property, comply with 
     the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the Federal Agencies Chesapeake 
     Ecosystem Unified Plan, and any subsequent agreements and 
     plans.
       ``(3) Budget coordination.--
       ``(A) In general.--As part of the annual budget submission 
     of each Federal agency with projects or grants related to 
     restoration, planning, monitoring, or scientific 
     investigation of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem, the head of 
     the agency shall submit to the President a report that 
     describes plans for the expenditure of the funds under this 
     section.
       ``(B) Disclosure to the council.--The head of each agency 
     referred to in subparagraph (A) shall disclose the report 
     under that subparagraph with the Chesapeake Executive Council 
     as appropriate.
       ``(g) Chesapeake Bay Program.--
       ``(1) Management strategies.--The Administrator, in 
     coordination with other members of the Chesapeake Executive 
     Council, shall ensure that management plans are developed and 
     implementation is begun by signatories to the Chesapeake Bay 
     Agreement to achieve and maintain--
       ``(A) the nutrient goals of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement 
     for the quantity of nitrogen and phosphorus entering the 
     Chesapeake Bay and its watershed;
       ``(B) the water quality requirements necessary to restore 
     living resources in the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem;
       ``(C) the Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxins Reduction and 
     Prevention Strategy goal of reducing or eliminating the input 
     of chemical contaminants from all controllable sources to 
     levels that result in no toxic or bioaccumulative impact on 
     the living resources of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem or on 
     human health;
       ``(D) habitat restoration, protection, and enhancement 
     goals established by Chesapeake Bay Agreement signatories for 
     wetlands, riparian forests, and other types of habitat 
     associated with the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem; and
       ``(E) the restoration, protection, and enhancement goals 
     established by the Chesapeake Bay Agreement signatories for 
     living resources associated with the Chesapeake Bay 
     ecosystem.
       ``(2) Small watershed grants program.--The Administrator, 
     in cooperation with the Chesapeake Executive Council, shall--
       ``(A) establish a small watershed grants program as part of 
     the Chesapeake Bay Program; and
       ``(B) offer technical assistance and assistance grants 
     under subsection (d) to local governments and nonprofit 
     organizations and individuals in the Chesapeake Bay region to 
     implement--
       ``(i) cooperative tributary basin strategies that address 
     the water quality and living resource needs in the Chesapeake 
     Bay ecosystem; and
       ``(ii) locally based protection and restoration programs or 
     projects within a watershed that complement the tributary 
     basin strategies.
       ``(h) Study of Chesapeake Bay Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than April 22, 2000, and every 
     5 years thereafter, the Administrator, in coordination with 
     the Chesapeake Executive Council, shall complete a study and 
     submit to Congress a comprehensive report on the results of 
     the study.
       ``(2) Requirements.--The study and report shall--
       ``(A) assess the state of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem;
       ``(B) assess the appropriateness of commitments and goals 
     of the Chesapeake Bay Program and the management strategies 
     established under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement for improving 
     the state of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem;
       ``(C) assess the effectiveness of management strategies 
     being implemented on the date of enactment of this section 
     and the extent to which the priority needs are being met;
       ``(D) make recommendations for the improved management of 
     the Chesapeake Bay Program either by strengthening strategies 
     being implemented on the date of enactment of this section or 
     by adopting new strategies; and
       ``(E) be presented in such a format as to be readily 
     transferable to and usable by other watershed restoration 
     programs.
       ``(i) Special Study of Living Resource Response.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Administrator shall 
     commence a 5-year special study with full participation of 
     the scientific community of the Chesapeake Bay to establish 
     and expand understanding of the response of the living 
     resources of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem to improvements in 
     water quality that have resulted from investments made 
     through the Chesapeake Bay Program.
       ``(2) Requirements.--The study shall--
       ``(A) determine the current status and trends of living 
     resources, including grasses, benthos, phytoplankton, 
     zooplankton, fish, and shellfish;
       ``(B) establish to the extent practicable the rates of 
     recovery of the living resources in response to improved 
     water quality condition;
       ``(C) evaluate and assess interactions of species, with 
     particular attention to the impact of changes within and 
     among trophic levels; and
       ``(D) recommend management actions to optimize the return 
     of a healthy and balanced ecosystem in response to 
     improvements in the quality and character of the waters of 
     the Chesapeake Bay.
       ``(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2000 through 2005.''.

[[Page 3350]]

     
                                  ____
       Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act of 1999--Sectional Summary

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This section establishes the title of the bill as the 
     ``Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act of 1999.''

     SECTION 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       This section states that the purpose of the Act is to 
     expand and strengthen the cooperative efforts to restore and 
     protect the Chesapeake Bay and to achieve the goals embodied 
     in the Chesapeake Bay Agreement.

     SECTION 3. CHESAPEAKE BAY.

       (a) Definitions
       This section defines the terms ``Administrative Cost,'' 
     ``Chesapeake Bay Agreement,'' ``Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem,'' 
     ``Chesapeake Bay Program,'' ``Chesapeake Executive Council,'' 
     and ``Signatory Jurisdiction.''
       (b) Continuation of Chesapeake Bay Program
       This section provides authority for EPA to continue to lead 
     and coordinate the Chesapeake Bay Program, in coordination 
     with other members of the Chesapeake Executive Council, and 
     to maintain a Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office.
       The Chesapeake Bay Program Office is required to provide 
     support to the Chesapeake Executive Council for implementing 
     and coordinating science, research, modeling, monitoring and 
     other efforts that support the Chesapeake Bay Program.
       The section requires the Chesapeake Bay Program Office, in 
     cooperation with Federal, State and local authorities, to 
     assist Chesapeake Bay Agreement signatories in developing 
     specific action plans, outreach efforts and system-wide 
     monitoring, assessment and public participation to improve 
     the water quality and living resources of the Bay.
       (c) Interagency Agreements
       This section authorizes the Administrator of the EPA to 
     enter into interagency agreements with other Federal agencies 
     to carry out the purposes and activities of the Chesapeake 
     Bay Program Office.
       (d) Technical Assistance and Assistance Grants
       This section authorizes the EPA Administrator to provide 
     technical assistance and assistance grants to nonprofit 
     private organizations, State and local governments, colleges, 
     universities, and interstate agencies.
       (e) Implementation and Monitoring Grants
       The section authorizes the EPA to issue grants to signatory 
     jurisdictions for the purpose of monitoring the Chesapeake 
     Bay ecosystem.
       The section establishes criteria for proposals and 
     establishes limits on administrative costs (no more than 10% 
     of grant amount) and the allowable ``Federal Share'' (no more 
     than 50% of total project cost).
       The EPA Administrator is required to produce a public 
     document each year that describes all projects funded under 
     this section.
       (f) Federal Facilities and Budget Coordination
       The Section requires Federal agencies that own or operate a 
     facility within the Chesapeake Bay watershed to participate 
     in regional and subwatershed planning and restoration 
     programs, and to ensure that federally owned facilities are 
     in compliance with the Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
       The section establishes a mechanism for budget coordination 
     to ensure efficiency across government programs.
       (f) Chesapeake Bay Program
       This section directs the Administrator, in consultation 
     with other members of the Executive Council, to ensure that 
     management plans are developed and implementation is begun by 
     signatory jurisdictions to achieve and maintain: the 
     Chesapeake Bay Agreement goals for reducing and capping 
     nitrogen and phosphorus entering the mainstem Bay; water 
     quality requirements needed to restore living resources in 
     the bay mainstem and tributaries; the Chesapeake Bay 
     Basinwide Toxins Reduction and Prevention Strategy goals; and 
     the Chesapeake Bay Agreement habitat restoration, protection, 
     and enhancement goals are achieved.
       This section also authorizes the EPA Administrator, in 
     consultation with other members of the Executive Council, to 
     offer the technical assistance and financial grants 
     assistance grants to local governments, nonprofit 
     organizations, colleges, and universities to implement 
     locally-based watershed protection and restoration programs 
     or projects that complement the Chesapeake Bay tributary 
     basin strategy.
       (h) Study of the Chesapeake Bay Program
       This section requires the Administrator and other members 
     of the executive Council to study and evaluate the 
     effectiveness the Chesapeake Bay program management 
     strategies and to periodically (every 5 years) submit a 
     comprehensive report to Congress.
       (i) Special Study of Living Resources Response
       The section requires the EPA Administrator to conduct a 
     five-year study of the Chesapeake Bay and report to Congress 
     on the status of its living resources and to make 
     recommendations on management actions that may be necessary 
     to ensure the continued recovery of the Chesapeake Bay and 
     its ecosystem.
       (j) Authorization Of Appropriations
       The section authorizes appropriations to the Environmental 
     Protection Agency of $30,000,000 for each fiscal year from 
     2000 through and including 2005.
                                  ____

                                                State of Maryland,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                                February 23, 1999.
     Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Paul: Thank you for your continuing to support 
     environmental initiatives that benefit Maryland citizens. You 
     have long been a champion of our great Chesapeake Bay, and an 
     outstanding advocate for the protection and restoration of 
     all our State's natural treasures. Your current proposed 
     legislation to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
     to assist in restoration of the Chesapeake Bay is just 
     another example of how you have been able to translate your 
     concern into action. The work you have facilitated through 
     the Chesapeake Bay Program has been an outstanding example of 
     interstate cooperation and progressive environmental programs 
     that have been invaluable to Maryland and Bay restoration.
       If we are to be successful in the next century, we must 
     look ahead and be ready to face new challenges as well as 
     continue to meet the old ones. Your proposed legislation 
     embodies that vision and therefore has my full support. Its 
     content demonstrates your understanding of the needs of 
     Maryland and the other states in the watershed. It also 
     recognizes the critical role played by local governments and 
     citizen groups. The legislation clearly moves the Bay cleanup 
     in the direction needed. In addition to my personal support, 
     the bill has been reviewed by the Maryland Bay Cabinet and 
     received its endorsement as well. We are all eager to see the 
     legislation move forward and would be happy to assist you.
       Thank you again for taking this initiative. Should you 
     require our assistance, you may contact John Griffin, 
     Secretary, Department of Natural Resources at (410) 260-8101.
           Sincerely,
                                             Parris N. Glendening,
     Governor.
                                  ____

                                          Commonwealth of Virginia


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                                February 23, 1999.
     Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sarbanes: The Commonwealth of Virginia 
     supports the language of the proposed Chesapeake Bay 
     Restoration Act, as shown in the attached copy dated February 
     8, 1999.
       The cooperative Chesapeake Bay Program has been and will 
     continue to be essential to the restoration of the Chesapeake 
     Bay system. Reauthorization will strengthen an already 
     successful Program and help support an increased level of 
     effort.
       The proposed increase in Federal support is already more 
     than matched by state monies put into the recently created 
     Virginia Water Quality Improvement Fund. Since its creation 
     in 1997 the Virginia General Assembly approves Governor 
     Gilmore's current legislative initiative, it will appropriate 
     an additional $45.15 million for 1999.
       We thank you for being the sponsor of this bill, and we 
     will assist in whatever way is appropriate to help ensure its 
     passage by Congress.
           Very truly yours,
     John Paul Woodley, Jr.
                                  ____

                                    Citizens Advisory Committee to


                             the Chesapeake Executive Council,

                                                February 22, 1999.
     Senator Paul Sarbanes,
     Senate Hart Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sarbanes: On behalf of the Citizens Advisory 
     Committee to the Chesapeake Executive Council (CAC), I would 
     like to express our appreciation for your leadership in 
     developing the draft Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act. 
     Provisions such as those embodied in this proposed 
     legislation are vital to building upon one of the most 
     successful partnerships ever assembled, involving every level 
     of government and the private sector, to restore the health 
     of an entire ecosystem.
       The Citizens Advisory Committee was created by the 
     Chesapeake Executive Council to represent residents and 
     stakeholders of the Chesapeake Bay watershed in the Bay 
     restoration efforts. By serving as a link with stakeholder 
     communities in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the 
     District of Columbia, CAC provides a non-governmental 
     perspective on the Bay cleanup effort and on how Bay Program 
     policies affect citizens who live and work in the Chesapeake 
     Bay watershed.
       The successes of the past twelve years in restoring the 
     health of the Bay are a direct result of hard work, funding, 
     and the dedicated commitment of the partners. Each and every 
     one of these factors is essential to continue fulfilling the 
     long-term restoration goals, particularly as the Bay Program 
     partners embrace a renewed Bay agreement in the next year. 
     Reauthorization and enhancement of Bay Program legislation 
     will signal to the states, local governments and citizens 
     that the Congress and the federal government will continue to 
     be a strong partner

[[Page 3351]]

     with them as they renew their commitment to these goals and 
     to a cleaner, healthier Chesapeake Bay. I am particularly 
     encouraged by the provisions to continue the Small Watershed 
     Grant program which provides a mechanism for local groups and 
     governments to take an active, hands-on role in the Bay 
     restoration activities.
       The members of CAC look forward to working with you and the 
     other members of Congressional delegations from the Bay 
     Program jurisdictions toward successful passage of this 
     legislation. Again, thank you for your leadership. Please 
     feel free to call upon CAC if there is any assistance that we 
     can provide.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Andrew J. Loftus,
     Chair.
                                  ____



                                    Chesapeake Bay Commission,

                                 Annapolis, MD, February 19, 1999.
     Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sarbanes: I am writing, in my new capacity as 
     Chairman of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, to commend you for 
     your endeavors to reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Program 
     through the introduction of the Chesapeake Bay Restoration 
     Act of 1999. The Commission strongly supports this 
     legislation. We commit to you our resources and expertise in 
     working to secure its passage.
       We believe that the cooperation of government at the 
     federal, state and local level is, and will continue to be, 
     essential to protecting and restoring the Bay. Your bill 
     helps to establish the blueprint and financial support for 
     that collaboration.
       We strongly support the small watershed provisions of the 
     bill. The health of the Bay depends on the cumulative effect 
     of thousands of daily decisions that either compromise or 
     improve water quality in our subwatersheds. Offering 
     community groups financial support and direct access to the 
     tremendous informational resources of the Chesapeake Bay 
     Program can only help them to make environmentally-sound 
     decisions.
       We would also like to commend you for pursuing improved 
     coordination of federal agency budgets. One of the great 
     hallmarks of the Program is EPA's close coordination with the 
     states in its expenditure of Bay Program monies. The Act 
     calls for each federal agency with projects related to the 
     Chesapeake Bay ecosystem to submit a plan detailing how the 
     expenditure of these funds will proceed. This enhanced 
     communication can only help to avoid unnecessary duplication 
     and cultivate cooperation among our federal partners.
       Finally, we are encouraged by your inclusion of a special 
     study to better relate the health of our living resources to 
     water quality improvements. Establishing better linkages will 
     improve the public's support of restoration efforts.
       Again and again you have proven yourself to be a tremendous 
     leader for the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort. We hope 
     that this legislation, with your support, will be enacted by 
     the 106th Congress.
       With gratitude, I remain
           Sincerely yours,
                                                Arthur D. Hershey,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                              Chesapeake Bay Local


                                Government Advisory Committee,

                                    Easton, MD, February 17, 1999.
     Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sarbanes: The Chesapeake Bay Local Government 
     Advisory Committee supports all efforts to sustain and 
     enhance Chesapeake Bay Program activities through renewal of 
     Federal legislation in the ``Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act 
     of 1999.''
       To date, the Chesapeake Bay Program has made great strides 
     in solidifying multijurisdictional efforts to improve the 
     condition of watershed resources in and around the Bay. It 
     has magnified the importance of continued efforts to enhance 
     water quality and to restore the living resources native to 
     the Bay. The Chesapeake Bay Program has elevated the role and 
     importance of local governments participating not only in the 
     Bay Program, but in completing watershed restoration projects 
     in their own jurisdiction.
       On behalf of the Chesapeake Bay Local Government Advisory 
     Committee, I thank you for your continuing leadership and 
     commitment to the Bay Restoration effort. If there is any way 
     that the Committee or its staff can assist you, please don't 
     hesitate to call.
       Sincerely,
     Russ Pettyjohn,
       Chairman, Chesapeake Bay Local Government Advisory 
     Committee.
     Lititz Borough,
       Mayor, Pennsylvania.
                                  ____



                              Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay,

                                                February 25, 1999.
     Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sarbanes: On behalf of the board of directors 
     of the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, I am writing to you 
     to express our support for your efforts to draft new 
     legislation to reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Program.
       Your leadership has been vital over the years in keeping 
     congressional attention focused on the work being conducted 
     in Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania to restore the Bay. 
     There is ample evidence that the unique collaborative effort 
     which was formalized in the 1987 amendment to the Clean Water 
     Act is producing positive results for the Bay. It is also 
     apparent that there is much left to do. The bill you have 
     drafted adds some significant features to the Bay Program; 
     the increase in the authorization level to $30 million will 
     substantially enhance the ability of the Bay partners to meet 
     the needs of the Bay in the next decade.
       We are conveying our support for the reauthorization of the 
     Bay Program to other members of Congress from the Bay states 
     in the hope that all will join as co-sponsors.
       Again, thank you for your vigilance and your vision with 
     regard to the Bay.
       Sincerely,
                                                 John T. Kauffman,
     President.
                                  ____



                                    Chesapeake Bay Foundation,

                                                    March 3, 1999.
     Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sarbanes: I am writing to express the 
     Chesapeake Bay Foundation's support for the Chesapeake Bay 
     Restoration Act of 1999. Although I realize that no single 
     piece of legislation can save the Chesapeake Bay, I believe 
     this bill will help push the Bay Program towards an increased 
     effort to carrying out the commitments made by the 
     signatories.
       I am particularly glad to see the section enhancing the 
     oversight and reporting responsibilities of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency. CBF has long felt that it is important for 
     the Environmental Protection Agency to take a stronger 
     leadership role in assuring that the participants are held 
     accountable for their commitments.
       I am also enthusiastic about the provisions providing for a 
     small watershed grant program. Restoration of the Bay's 
     essential habitat--its forests, wetlands, oysters, and 
     underwater grass beds--is a critical component of the effort 
     to save the Bay, and this legislation should help move that 
     effort forward.
       In summary, this legislation provides a step forward for 
     the Bay Program, and will help steer it in the right 
     direction. I would like to thank you and your cosponsors for 
     your efforts on behalf of this legislation and on behalf of 
     the Chesapeake Bay.
           Very truly yours,
                                                 William C. Baker,
                                                        President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Edwards):
  S. 493. A bill to require the Secretary of the Army, acting through 
the Chief of Engineers, to evaluate, develop, and implement pilot 
projects in Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina to address problems 
associated with toxic microorganisms in tidal and non-tidal wetlands 
and waters; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


            TOXIC MICROORGANISMS ABATEMENT PILOT PROJECT ACT

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, last Thursday's Baltimore Sun reported 
that Pfiesteria, a sometimes toxic microorganism, has been found in 
five more Maryland rivers. The article explained that new research is 
proving what scientists have suspected since serious outbreaks of toxic 
Pfiesteria first occurred in 1997--namely that Pfiesteria exists in a 
wide area. While the organism isn't always toxic, the fact that it has 
been found in a wide area coupled with the fact that it has proved 
injurious in the past, strongly supports the assertion that Pfiesteria 
poses a potential threat to the economic well-being of thousands of 
businesses in the fishing, recreation, and tourism industries along the 
east coast.
  In 1997, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina suffered from several 
separate incidents that involved fish behaving in an erratic manner, a 
large number of fish with lesions, and fish kills. State and outside 
scientists concluded that Pfiesteria was the most likely cause of the 
problem. In Maryland, the fishing industry alone, lost millions of 
dollars in revenue.
  In 1998, the magnitude of reported Pfiesteria outbreaks was 
considerably less, however, we cannot become complacent. The report in 
the Baltimore

[[Page 3352]]

Sun confirms that the 1997 Pfiesteria outbreaks may not have been a 
one-time phenomenon. We must begin to safeguard the economy, both 
regional and national, from the impacts of Pfiesteria.
  Today, I am joined by my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, 
and my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Edwards in introducing a 
bill, entitled the Toxic Microorganism Abatement Pilot Project Act, 
which would authorize the Army Corps of Engineers to begin developing 
tools and techniques to abate the flow of nutrients into our waters and 
thereby prevent or at least minimize the effects of future toxic 
Pfiesteria outbreaks.
  In 1997, the Administration directed that an interagency research and 
monitoring strategy be developed in response to the outbreaks of 
Pfiesteria in the Chesapeake Bay. Several Federal agencies participated 
in the development of this strategy including the National 
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), the Centers for Disease Control, and the 
Departments of Interior and Agriculture. Funding to implement the plan 
was included in the fiscal 1998 and 1999 budgets. Unfortunately, the 
key federal agency with expertise in habitat maintenance, water 
resources and engineering principles--the Army Corps of Engineers--was 
not included in the interagency task force and the agency's unique 
qualifications were not integrated into the strategic plan. While 
research into the exact causes of toxic Pfiesteria blooms is 
imperative, it is just as important that we take early, aggressive, and 
concrete steps to prevent such blooms if we can.
  This bill is designed to ensure that all available expertise is 
brought to bear in combating these biotoxins. The legislation would 
authorize the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an evaluation and to 
engage in pilot projects to develop tools and techniques for combating 
Pfiesteria and other toxic microorganisms. At the end of each pilot 
project, the Army Corps of Engineers will be required to submit a 
report to Congress that describes the project, its success, and the 
general applicability of the methods used in the project.
  Because of its expertise in construction and watershed management, 
the Army Corps of Engineers has a vital role to play in responding to 
the threats posed by toxic microorganisms. This legislation provides 
the funding and authority for the agency to do so.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill and a copy of the 
Baltimore Sun article be inserted in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 493

       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 ``Toxic Microorganism 
     Abatement Pilot Project Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) effective protection of tidal and nontidal wetlands and 
     waters of the United States is essential to sustain and 
     protect ecosystems, as well as recreational, subsistence, and 
     economic activities dependent on those ecosystems;
       (2) the effects of increasing occurrences of toxic 
     microorganism outbreaks can adversely affect those ecosystems 
     and their dependent activities;
       (3) the Corps of Engineers is uniquely qualified to develop 
     and implement engineering solutions to abate the flow of 
     nutrients;
       (4) because nutrient flow abatement is a new challenge, it 
     is desirable to have the Corps of Engineers conduct a series 
     of pilot projects to test technologies and refine techniques 
     appropriate to nutrient flow abatement; and
       (5) since the States of Maryland, North Carolina, and 
     Virginia have recently experienced serious outbreaks of 
     waterborne microorganisms and there is a large store of 
     scientific data about outbreaks in those States, pilot 
     projects in those States can be effectively evaluated.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers.
       (2) State.--The term ``State'' means Maryland, North 
     Carolina, and Virginia.
       (3) Toxic microorganism.--The term ``toxic microorganism'' 
     means Pfiesteria piscicida and any other potentially harmful 
     aquatic dinoflagellate.

     SEC. 4. PILOT PROJECTS FOR AQUATIC HABITAT REMEDIATION.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall evaluate, develop, 
     and implement a pilot project in each State (on a watershed 
     basis) to address and control problems associated with the 
     degradation of ecosystems and their dependent activities 
     resulting from toxic microorganisms in tidal and nontidal 
     wetlands and waters.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the completion of 
     the pilot project under subsection (a), the Secretary shall 
     submit to Congress a report describing--
       (1) the pilot project; and
       (2) the findings of the pilot project, including a 
     description of the relationship between the findings and the 
     applications of the tools and techniques developed under the 
     pilot project.
       (c) Federal and Non-Federal Shares.--
       (1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     evaluating, developing, and implementing a pilot project 
     under subsection (a) shall be 75 percent.
       (2) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the cost 
     of evaluating, developing, and implementing a pilot project 
     under subsection (a) shall be provided in the form of--
       (A) cash;
       (B) in-kind services;
       (C) materials; or
       (D) the value of--
       (i) land;
       (ii) easements;
       (iii) rights-of-way; or
       (iv) relocations.
       (d) Local Cooperation Agreements.--Subject to subsection 
     (c), in carrying out this section, the Secretary shall enter 
     into local cooperation agreements with non-Federal entities 
     under which the Secretary shall provide financial assistance 
     to implement actions taken to carry out pilot projects under 
     this section.
       (e) Implementation.--The Secretary shall carry out this 
     section in cooperation with--
       (1) the Secretary of the Interior;
       (2) the Secretary of Agriculture;
       (3) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency;
       (4) the Administrator of the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration;
       (5) the heads of other appropriate Federal, State, and 
     local government agencies; and
       (6) affected local landowners, businesses, and commercial 
     entities.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000.
                                  ____


                [From the Baltimore Sun, Feb. 25, 1999]

   Pfiesteria Found in 5 Md. Rivers--Presence Widespread in Rivers, 
                     Streams But Not Always Harmful


                       no ``one-time phenomenon''

     toxic microorganism detected for first time in Ocean City area

                           (By Heather Dewar)

       New research is proving what scientists long suspected: 
     that the toxic microorganism Pfiesteria piscicida lives in 
     many Maryland rivers and streams, even though it doesn't 
     always kill fish or make people sick.
       Pfiesteria expert Dr. JoAnn Burkholder has found the 
     dangerous dinoflagellates in samples taken from the bottom 
     muck of five Maryland waterways, including two where it had 
     not been found before. One of those waterways, the St. Martin 
     River, flows into the state's coastal bays west of Ocean 
     City.
       It was the first time the toxic microorganism had turned up 
     in a river that flows toward the Atlantic Coast tourist 
     mecca, though it has not caused any known fish kills or human 
     illnesses there, said David Goshorn of the Maryland 
     Department of Natural Resources.
       ``We have suspected all along that Pfiesteria is pretty 
     widespread,'' Goshorn said, ``and what she has done is to 
     confirm our suspicion.''
       A spokesman for the Maryland Coastal Bays Program said the 
     finding of Pfiesteria cells in local waters was ``not 
     surprising, but it is worrisome at the very least.''
       ``My guess is that Pfiesteria being there, as long as it 
     isn't toxic in the real world, is not that harmful,'' said 
     Dave Wilson Jr., a spokesman for the coastal bays 
     conservation effort. ``Hopefully, people will understand that 
     Pfiesteria is not running rampant in the coastal bays, but it 
     does have the potential to do so.''
       The aquatic organism has been found in coastal waters from 
     New Jersey to Georgia, but it causes fish kills or human 
     illnesses only when conditions are just right or just wrong, 
     Burkholder said.
       Pfiesteria ``is probably all over the bay,'' said 
     Burkholder, who presented preliminary findings to Maryland 
     officials at a two-day scientific meeting of Pfiesteria 
     experts near Baltimore-Washington International Airport 
     yesterday. ``It's just that most of the time it's going to be 
     pretty benign.''


                          weather as a factor

       Experts say Pfiesteria seems most likely to multiply, 
     attack fish and sicken people in

[[Page 3353]]

     warm, shallow, still waters that are a mix of fresh and salt, 
     are rich in nutrients--like the pollutants that come from 
     human sewage, animal manure or farm fertilizer--and also rich 
     in fish, especially oily fish like menhaden. Weather also 
     plays a role, but scientists aren't certain what it is.
       Maryland experts think unusual weather patterns, combined 
     with high nutrient levels, helped trigger significant 
     Pfiesteria outbreaks in the Pocomoke River and two other 
     Eastern Shore waterways in 1997. The three waterways were 
     closed, and 13 people were diagnosed with memory loss and 
     confusion after being on the water during the outbreaks.
       Researchers think a different set of weather quirks helped 
     limit Pfiesteria to three small incidents last year, none of 
     which killed fish or caused confirmed cases of human illness.
       A spokesman for Gov. Parris N. Glendening, who pushed for 
     controversial controls on farm runoff after the 1997 
     incidents, said Burkholder's latest findings show that action 
     was justified.
       ``What they point to is that this is not a one-time 
     phenomenon,'' said Ray Feldmann of the governor's office. 
     ``We cannot take a bury-our-heads-in-the-sand approach to the 
     phenomenon we saw in the summer of 1997. We still need to be 
     concerned about this.
       ``We're encouraged that we've got a plan in place that has 
     the potential for helping to hold off future outbreaks.''
       Burkholder, a North Carolina State University researcher 
     who helped discover Pfiesteria in the late 1980s, said 
     Maryland waters do not seem to be as prone to toxic outbreaks 
     as the waters of North Carolina, which has experienced 88 
     Pfresteria-related fish kills in the past eight years.
       The latest finding ``tells me that Chesapeake Bay is not 
     ideal for toxic Pfiesteria, but you have the potential to go 
     a lot more toxic unless you take appropriate precautions,'' 
     Burkholder said. ``Do you want to be a center for toxic 
     outbreaks, or do you not?''
       The preliminary results are part of a study for the DNR, 
     which is trying to map the extent of Pfiesteria in Maryland 
     waters.
       In October and November, when the dinoflagellate is usually 
     burrowed into bottom mud, DNR workers took 100 sediment 
     samples from 12 rivers. They were the Patuxent and Potomac on 
     the Western Shore; the Chester, Choptank, Chicamacomico, 
     Nanticoke, Wicomico, Manokin, Big Annemessex and Pocomoke, 
     all flowing into the Chesapeake Bay on the Eastern Shore; and 
     the St. Martin, which flows into Assawoman Bay near Ocean 
     City, and Trappe Creek, which enters Chincoteague Bay near 
     Assateague Island National Seashore.
       In the first 30 samples, Burkholder found Pfiesteria 
     piscicida in concentrations high enough to kill fish in the 
     Big Annemessex, Chicamacomico, Pocomoke, and St. Martin. She 
     found the same organism on the Wicomico, but the cells did 
     not kill fish in her laboratory. In Trappe Creek, she found a 
     dinoflagellate that did not kill fish and has not been 
     identified.
       Burkholder and other experts stressed that there have been 
     no recent fish kills or signs that people have gotten sick at 
     the sites where DNR workers took the Pfiesteria-infested 
     samples in October and November.
       The Patuxent, Potomac, Chester and Choptank turned up no 
     traces of Pfiesteria, but Burkholder said she has about 70 
     more sediment samples waiting to be analyzed, and expects to 
     find signs of the microorganism in at least some of them.


                         rhode river discovery

       Another marine scientist discovered Pfiesteria almost by 
     accident in the Rhode River south of Annapolis this fall.
       Park Roblee of the University of North Carolina has 
     developed a test that can spot Pfiesteria in the water, but 
     he cannot tell whether the organism is in its toxic stage. He 
     told scientists at this week's meeting that he got samples 
     from the Rhode River expecting them to be Pfiesteria-free but 
     to his surprise they came up positive. Again, there were no 
     signs of a fish kill in the area.
       Roblee said workers from his laboratory traveled the coast 
     from New Jersey to Florida, taking water samples ``basically 
     wherever I-95 crossed a river or stream that flowed into an 
     estuary.'' The samples showed signs of Pfiesteria at eight 
     out of 100 sites, he said.
       In other findings reported yesterday, University of 
     Maryland researcher David Oldach said no signs of serious 
     illness were found in 1998, the first year of a five-year 
     study of people who might come in contact with Pfiesteria. 
     Oldach said 90 Eastern Shore watermen and 25 people who don't 
     work near the water have volunteered for the study and 
     undergone testing.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Roth, Mr. Moynihan, 
        Mr. Chafee, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Mack, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Kerrey, 
        Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Harkin, 
        Mr. Bayh, and Mr. Robb):
  S. 494. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
prohibit transfers or discharges of residents of nursing facilities as 
a result of a voluntary withdrawal from participation in the Medicaid 
program; to the Committee on Finance.


          nursing home resident protection amendments of 1999

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to 
commend Senator Grassley, Chairman Roth and Senator Moynihan for their 
bipartisan commitment to protect our nation's seniors from 
indiscriminate dumping by their nursing homes. I would like to request 
that their statements be added to the Record.
  The Nursing Home Residential Security Act of 1999 has the support of 
the nursing home industry and senior citizen advocates. It is with 
their support that we encourage the Senate to take action on this 
important piece of legislation. I also have letters of support from the 
American Health Care Association, the National Seniors Law Center, and 
the American Association for Retired Persons which I will include in 
the Record.
  Mr. President, last year, it looked like 93-year-old Adela Mongiovi 
might have to spend her 61st Mother's Day away from the assisted living 
facility that she had called home for the last four years. Her son 
Nelson and daughter-in-law Geri feared that they would have to move 
Adela when officials at the Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center of 
Tampa told them that their Alzheimer's Disease-afflicted mother would 
have to be relocated so that the nursing home could complete 
``renovations.''
  As the Mongiovis told me when I met with them and visited their 
mother in Tampa last April, the real story far exceeded their worst 
fears. The supposedly temporary relocation was actually a permanent 
eviction of all 52 residents whose housing and care were paid for by 
the Medicaid program. Ms. Mongiovi passed away during the holiday 
season and I send my heartfelt condolences to her family.
  The nursing home chain which owns the Tampa facility and several 
others across the United States wanted to purge its nursing homes of 
Medicaid residents, ostensibly to take more private insurance payers 
and Medicare beneficiaries which pay more per resident.
  This may have been a good financial decision in the short run, 
however, its effects on our nation's senior citizens, if practiced on a 
widespread basis, would be even more disastrous.
  In an April 7, 1998, Wall Street Journal article, several nursing 
home executives argued that state governments and Congress are to blame 
for these evictions because they have set Medicaid reimbursements too 
low. While Medicaid payments to nursing homes may need to be revised, 
playing Russian roulette with elderly patients' lives is hardly the way 
to send that message to Congress. And while I am willing to engage in a 
discussion as to the equity of nursing home reimbursement rates, my 
colleagues and I are not willing to allow nursing home facilities to 
dump patients indiscriminately.
  The fact that some nursing home companies are willing to sacrifice 
elderly Americans for the sake of their bottom-line is bad enough. What 
is even worse is their attempt to evade blame for Medicaid evictions. 
The starkest evidence of this shirking of responsibility is found in 
the shell game many companies play to justify evictions. Current law 
allows nursing homes to discharge patients for inability to pay.
  If a facility decreases its number of Medicaid beds, state and 
federal governments are no longer allowed to pay the affected 
residents' bills. They can then be conveniently and unceremoniously 
dumped for--you guessed it--their inability to pay.
  Nursing home evictions have a devastating effect on the health and 
well-being of some of society's most vulnerable members. A recent 
University of Southern California study indicated that those who are 
uprooted from their homes undergo a phenomenon knows as ``transfer 
trauma.'' For these seniors, the consequences are stark. The death rate 
among these seniors is two to three times higher than that for 
individuals who receive continuous care.

[[Page 3354]]

  Those of us who believe that our mothers, fathers, and grandparents 
are safe because Medicaid affects only low-income Americans need to 
think again. A three year stay in a nursing home can cost upwards of 
$125,000. As a result, nearly half of all nursing home residents who 
enter as privately-paying patients exhaust their personal savings and 
lose health insurance coverage during their stay. Medicaid becomes many 
retirees' last refuge of financial support.
  On April 19, 1998, the Florida Medicaid Bureau responded to evidence 
of Medicaid dumping in Tampa by levying a steep $260,000 fine against 
the Tampa nursing home. That was a strong and appropriate action, but 
it was only a partial solution. Medicaid funding is a shared 
responsibility of states and the federal government.
  While the most egregious incident occurred in Florida, Medicaid 
dumping is not just a Florida problem. Nursing homes which were once 
locally-run and family-owned are increasingly administered by multi-
state, multi-facility corporations that have the power to affect 
seniors across the United States.
  Mr. President, let me also point out that the large majority of 
nursing homes in America treat residents well and are responsible 
community citizens. Our bill is simple and fair and designed to prevent 
future abuses by bad actors. It would prohibit current Medicaid 
beneficiaries or those who ``spend down'' to Medicaid from being 
evicted from their homes.
  Adele Mongiovi was not just a ``beneficiary.'' She was also a mother 
and grandmother. To Ms. Mongiovi, the Rehabilitation and Health Care 
Center of Tampa was not just an ``assisted living facility''--it was 
her home.
  Mr. President, let us provide security and peace of mind for all of 
our nation's seniors and their families. Mr. President, I ask unanimous 
consent that letters of support for the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                             American Health Care Association,

                                 Washington, DC, February 3, 1999.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: I am writing to lend the support of 
     the American Health Care Association to the Nursing Home 
     Protection Amendments of 1999, which you introduced as S. 
     2308 last year and plan to reintroduce this year. This 
     legislation helps to ensure a secure environment for 
     residents of nursing facilities which withdraw from the 
     Medicaid program.
       We know firsthand that a nursing facility is one's home, 
     and we strive to make sure resident are healthy and secure in 
     their home. We strongly support the clarifications your bill 
     will provide to both current and future nursing facility 
     residents, and do not believe residents should be discharged 
     because of inadequacies in the Medicaid program.
       The bill addresses a troubling symptom of what could be a 
     much larger problem. The desire to end participation in the 
     Medicaid program is a result of the unwillingness of some 
     states to adequately fund the quality of care that residents 
     expect and deserve. Thus, some providers may opt out of the 
     program to maintain a higher level of quality than is 
     possible when relying on inadequate Medicaid rates. Nursing 
     home residents should not be the victims of the inadequacies 
     of their state's Medicaid program.
       In 1996, the Congress voted to retain all standards for 
     nursing facilities. We support those standards. In 1997, 
     Congress voted separately to eliminate requirements that 
     states pay for those standards. These two issues are 
     inextricably linked, and must be considered together. We 
     welcome the opportunity to have this debate as Congress moves 
     forward on this issue.
       Again, we appreciate the chance to work with you to provide 
     our residents with quality care in a home-like setting that 
     is safe and secure. We also feel that it would be most 
     effective when considered in the context of the relationship 
     between payment and quality and access to care.
       Finally, we greatly appreciate the inclusive manner in 
     which this legislation was crafted, and strengthened. When 
     the views of consumers, providers, and regulators are 
     considered together, the result, as with your bill, is 
     intelligent public policy.
       We look forward to working with you to further clarify 
     Medicaid policy and preserve our ability to provide the best 
     care and security for our residents.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                    Bruce Yarwood,
     Legislative Counsel.
                                  ____

                                          National Senior Citizens


                                                   Law Center,

                                 Washington, DC, February 3, 1999.
     Senator Bob Graham,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: Last spring, the Vencor Corporation 
     began to implement a policy of withdrawing its nursing 
     facilities from participation in the Medicaid program. The 
     abrupt, involuntary transfer of large numbers of Medicaid 
     residents followed. Although Vencor reversed its policy, in 
     light of Congressional concern, state agency action, and 
     adverse publicity, the situation highlighted an issue in need 
     of an explicit federal legislative solution--the rights of 
     Medicaid residents to remain in their home when their nursing 
     facility voluntarily ceases to participate in the federal 
     payment program.
       I supported the legislation you introduced in the last 
     Congress and have read the draft bill that you will introduce 
     to address this issue in this session. The bill protects 
     residents who were admitted at a time when their facility 
     participated in Medicaid by prohibiting the facility from 
     involuntarily transferring them later when it decides to 
     discontinue its participation. As you know, many people in 
     nursing facilities begin their residency paying privately for 
     their care and choose the facility in part because of 
     promises that they can stay when they exhaust their private 
     funds and become eligible for Medicaid. In essence, your bill 
     requires the facility to honor the promises it made to these 
     residents at the time of their admission. It continues to 
     allow facilities to withdraw from the Medicaid program, but 
     any withdrawal is prospective only. All current residents may 
     remain in their home.
       This bill gives peace of mind to older people and their 
     families by affirming that their Medicaid-participating 
     facility cannot abandon them if it later voluntarily chooses 
     to end its participation in Medicaid.
       The National Senior Citizens Law Center supports this 
     legislation. We look forward to working with your staff on 
     this legislation and on other bills to protect the rights and 
     interests of nursing facility residents and other older 
     people. In particular, we suggest that you consider 
     legislation addressing a related issue of concern to Medicaid 
     beneficiaries and their families--problems of nursing 
     facilities' discriminatory admissions practices.
       Many facilities limit the extent of their participation in 
     the Medicaid program by certifying only a small number of 
     beds for Medicaid. As a consequence of their limited 
     participation in the Medicaid program, they discriminate 
     against program beneficiaries by denying them admission. In 
     addition, residents who pay privately and become eligible for 
     Medicaid during their residency in the facility because of 
     the high cost of nursing facility care are also affected by 
     limited bed, or distinct part, certification. Once such 
     residents become impoverished and need to rely on Medicaid to 
     help pay for their care, they are often told that ``no 
     Medicaid beds are available'' and that they must move. 
     Facilities engage in other practices that discriminate 
     against people who need to rely on Medicaid for their care. 
     We would be happy to work with your staff in developing 
     legislative solutions to these concerns.
       Thank you for your work and leadership on these important 
     issues.
           Sincerely,
     Toby S. Edelman.
                                  ____



                                                          AARP

                                Washington, DC, February 25, 1999.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC
       Dear Senator Graham: AARP appreciates your leadership in 
     sponsoring the Nursing Home Residential Security Act of 1999, 
     a bill that protects low-income nursing home residents from 
     discharge when a nursing home withdraws from the Medicaid 
     program.
       Across the country, some nursing home operators have been 
     accused of dumping Medicaid residents--among the most 
     defenseless of all health care patients. As with similar 
     complaints about hospitals and physicians, these violations 
     can be serious threats to people's health and safety. Yet, 
     federal and state governments have been limited to their 
     oversight and enforcement capacities. This bill would 
     establish clear legal authority to prevent inappropriate 
     discharges, even when a nursing home withdraws from the 
     Medicaid program. AARP believes that this is an important and 
     necessary step in protecting access to nursing homes for our 
     nation's most vulnerable citizens.
       This bill offers important protections because of the 
     documented that Medicaid patients face, especially people 
     seeking nursing home care. For years, there has been strong 
     evidence demonstrating that people who are eligible for 
     Medicaid have a harder time gaining entry to a nursing home 
     than do private payers. In some parts of the country, there 
     is a shortage of nursing home beds. Under such circumstances, 
     only private-pay patients have real choice among nursing 
     homes. Medicaid patients are often forced to choose a home 
     that they would not have otherwise chosen, despite concerns 
     about its quality of care or location.
       Under the proposed legislation, government survey, 
     certification, and enforcement

[[Page 3355]]

     authority would continue, even after the facility withdraws 
     from the Medicaid program, and the facility would be required 
     to continue to comply with it. The bill also protects 
     prospective residents by requiring oral and written notice 
     that the nursing home has withdrawn from the Medicaid 
     program. Thus, the prospective nursing home resident would be 
     given notice that the home would be permitted to transfer or 
     discharge a new resident at such time as the resident is 
     unable to pay for care.
       Access to quality nursing homes has been a long-standing 
     and serious concern for AARP. It is an issue that affects, in 
     a real way, our members and their families. The current 
     patchwork system of long-term care forces many Americans to 
     spend down to pay for expensive nursing home care. Therefore, 
     it is unfair to penalize such order, frail nursing home 
     residents who must rely on Medicaid at a critical time in 
     their lives.
       Again, thank you for your leadership on this issue. If we 
     can be of further assistance, please give me a call or have 
     your staff contact Maryanne Keenan of our Federal Affairs 
     staff at (202) 434-3772.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Horace B. Deets.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senators 
Graham, Roth, and Moynihan in introducing legislation that will be an 
important step in safeguarding our most vulnerable citizens. The 
Nursing Home Residential Security Act of 1999 will protect nursing home 
residents who are covered by Medicaid from being thrown out of a 
facility to make room for a more lucrative, private-pay patient.
  It is hard to believe that a facility would uproot a frail individual 
for the sole purpose of a few extra dollars. However, in the past year 
there have been documented cases of Medicaid beneficiaries who have 
been at risk of being forced to leave a facility based solely on 
reimbursement status. The result is often severe trauma and a mortality 
rate that is two to three times higher than other nursing home 
residents. This is no way to treat our elderly.
  I want to make it clear that these situations are rare. The vast 
majority of nursing homes are compassionate and decent facilities. My 
state of Iowa has been privileged to have many nursing homes that stand 
as models of quality care. Unfortunately, a few bad apples can damage 
the reputation of an entire industry. That is why I am pleased that 
this bipartisan legislation has the support of the nursing home 
industry as well as senior citizens' advocates.
  This commonsense proposal would prevent nursing homes who have 
already accepted a Medicaid patient from evicting or transferring the 
patient based solely on payment status. Nursing homes would still be 
entitled to decide who gains access to their facilities, however, they 
would be required to inform new residents that if they spend down to 
Medicaid, they are entitled to discharge or transfer them to another 
facility.
  This legislation is an important step in protecting these frail 
individuals. People move into nursing homes for around-the-clock health 
care in a safe environment. The last thing they expect is to be put out 
on the street. That's also the last thing they deserve. This bill 
prevents residents from getting hurt if their nursing home pulls out of 
Medicaid and ensures that people know their rights up front, before 
they enter a facility.
  This commonsense proposal has also been introduced in the House of 
Representatives by Congressman Bilirakis where it has received strong 
bipartisan support. I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to 
cosponsor this worthwhile proposal. And, I look forward to the passage 
of this resolution this year.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join with Senator 
Moynihan, Senator Graham, and Senator Grassley to introduce important 
legislation to protect some of our most vulnerable citizens--nursing 
home residents. Our bill will keep nursing home residents who rely on 
Medicaid from being ``dumped'' out of the facility they call home, 
should that facility decide to drop participation in the Medicaid 
program.
  The problem we will solve with this bill does not occur often. In 
fact, nearly 90 percent of all nursing homes participate in the 
Medicaid program. Pullouts are very rare and usually result from 
facilities deciding to close. But when a still-functioning facility 
decides to stop serving Medicaid clients, our bill will ensure that 
current residents do not find themselves pushed out of the place they 
view as home.
  Recently, Medicaid beneficiaries in facilities in Indiana and Florida 
found themselves in precisely this horrible situation. They were forced 
out of nursing homes that decided to drop participation in the Medicaid 
program. Residents' well-being was disrupted and families were forced 
to scramble to develop other care alternatives.
  Our new legislation, and H.R. 540, its companion bill in the House, 
will protect current residents from displacement. The bill simply 
requires that facilities withdrawing from the Medicaid program continue 
to care for current residents under the terms and conditions of the 
Medicaid program until those residents no longer require care. 
Facilities would essentially phase-down participation in Medicaid 
rather than dropping from the program overnight.
  Both the nursing home industry and senior citizens' advocates support 
our legislation. This is a common sense, good-government bill that will 
enhance the peace of mind of low-income elderly and disabled 
individuals.
  I applaud the House Conference Committee for having already held a 
hearing on H.R. 540, and Representatives Bilirakis and Davis are to be 
congratulated for their leadership on this important issue. As we 
introduce our bill in the Senate today, I would like to particularly 
thank Senator Bob Graham, whose commitment to this legislation has been 
pivotal. Working with him, Senator Moynihan, Senator Grassley, and 
other original Finance Committee cosponsors Senators Chafee, Mack, 
Rockefeller, Breaux, Bryan, and Kerrey, I look forward to taking up the 
bill up in our committee.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues 
Senators Graham, Roth and Grassley in introducing this legislation--the 
Nursing Home Residential Security Act of 1999. It is a modest 
modification providing an enormous protection for nursing home 
residents.
  The situation today is as follows. Frail elderly individuals who 
require nursing home care are faced with costs of $40,000 to $50,000 on 
average per year. These sums quickly deplete family savings. As a 
result, about two-thirds of nursing home residents at some point spend 
down their assets and require the assistance of Medicaid coverage. 
Because Medicaid typically has low reimbursement rates, nursing homes, 
in turn, must carefully balance their finances by screening which 
patients to accept, limiting the number of Medicaid residents. When 
nursing homes can no longer operate with low Medicaid rates, they may 
choose to reduce the number of beds available for Medicaid residents or 
no longer participate in the Medicaid program altogether.
  What, then, happens to the residents who depend on Medicaid to cover 
their nursing home costs? The Wall Street Journal first reported on 
April 7 of last year what has occurred: Vencor Inc., with the nation's 
largest nursing home chain of 310 facilities, decided to withdraw 
participation in the Medicaid program. Residents covered by Medicaid 
were so notified and told they would have to leave the nursing homes--
their homes.
  Industry analysts had predicted that some other companies may follow 
Vencor's lead in jettisoning Medicaid residents. For example, 
Renaissance Healthcare Corp. withdrew from Medicaid the year before due 
to rising expenses.
  The evictions in Vencor's Indiana and Florida nursing homes caused 
panic among residents and their families, and aggravated some patients' 
frail medical conditions. In all, it was a wrenching experience for 
residents and their families.
  Our legislation is a small modification amid an otherwise larger 
problem. The bill would merely protect current Medicaid residents in 
nursing homes from evictions if their nursing home decides to withdraw 
from the Medicaid program. Nursing homes will be able to continue to 
screen patients for acceptance into their facility. The screening

[[Page 3356]]

process is quite sophisticated and includes collection of information 
about assets and income to determine when the individual will likely 
spend down his or her resources before requiring Medicaid coverage.
  The larger dilemma still exists. We need a system that both covers 
our frail elderly in nursing homes after they spend themselves into 
poverty due to nursing home costs and ensures that nursing homes can 
stay in business in order to provide such services.
  Momentum is moving behind this legislation. Our bill enjoys 
bipartisan support in Congress as well as support from the nursing home 
industry and advocates. On the Senate side, we introduce this bill 
today with a total of 15 sponsors. Last week, the House Commerce 
Subcommittee on Health and Environment held a hearing on this 
legislation. Chairman Roth and I are committed to marking up this bill 
in our Committee in the near future. I commend Senator Graham for his 
leadership in initiating this proposal, and urge its early adoption.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BOND (for himself, Mr. Ashcroft, and Mr. Inhofe):
  S. 495. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to repeal the highway 
sanctions; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


  legislation to repeal clean air act to repeal the highway sanctions

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the purpose of this bill is simple and 
clear. The only thing the bill does is to repeal the highway sanction 
provisions in the Clean Air Act.
  I want to start by saying that I know what the so-called 
environmental community is going to say. Actually, they have already 
said it. I recall a press release that said, ``Another smoggy stealth 
attack is in the works,'' and ``sharpening the dirty-air knives.'' 
Well, that sounds fancy and exciting, but it is just flat wrong.
  Mr. President, I ask you, where is the common sense? I do not want 
dirty air. And I do not think anybody in this room, in this body, wants 
dirty air. But any attempt to change the status quo gets some 
spinmeisters at work.
  Let me explain where there is a real problem. There is a provision in 
the Clean Air Act that allows the EPA Administrator, with the approval 
of the Secretary of Transportation, to halt highway funding for a 
nonattainment area. For instance, if a State does not have an approved 
clean air plan, after a certain period of time sanctions apply, and 
those sanctions include halting highway funding. Now, transit funding 
can continue and bike path money can go forward. There is also a 
``safety'' exemption where the Secretary of Transportation determines 
that a ``project is an improvement in safety to resolve a demonstrated 
safety problem and likely will result in a significant reduction in, or 
avoidance of, accidents.''
  I have several problems with that provision.
  First, highway funding is a matter of safety. We dedicate 
transportation funds to specific improvement programs, like railroad 
crossings and programs on drunk driving. But highway safety is also an 
issue when it comes to road conditions.
  In my own State of Missouri, I can tell you that highway fatality 
rates are higher than the national average because roads are more 
dangerous. In the period 1992 to 1996, 5,279 people died on Missouri 
highways. Nationally, Federal Highways estimates that road conditions 
are a factor in about 30 percent of traffic fatalities. Well, I believe 
that figure is higher in Missouri, because I have been on the narrow 
two-lane roads and have seen the white crosses where people have died.
  Highway improvements, such as wider lanes and shoulders, adding or 
improving medians, and upgrading roads from two lanes to four lanes can 
reduce traffic fatalities and accidents. The Secretary can grant 
exemptions from the current law to allow a project to go forward, but 
he can also deny them. I have a problem with the Government, the 
Federal Government, micromanaging a State's transportation plan.
  The law also says the State will have to submit data to justify that 
the ``principal purpose of the project is an improvement in safety.'' 
Tell that to the grandmother who has lost her granddaughter on a 
stretch of highway. She will never go to the prom, because she was 
killed on that highway.
  I would argue that highway construction and improvements are almost 
always a matter of safety and that to have to seek an exemption is an 
unnecessary and inappropriate delay. Any further delay imposed by the 
Federal Government on highway projects which are necessary for safety 
is unacceptable.
  Second, taking away or imposing any kind of delay on highway funding 
does nothing to improve air quality or to reduce congestion. According 
to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
Officials, ``Congestion damages air quality, increases travel times, 
costs an estimated $43 billion annually in delays in the country's 50 
largest urban areas, and generates additional delay costs in rural and 
suburban areas.''
  Some will argue, ``If you build it, they will come.'' That normally 
applies to baseball diamonds, but they are talking about highways. I am 
not denying that there is some truth to that, but congestion already 
exists. They are already there. People in our State and rural Missouri 
are driving, and they are driving on narrow highways because they have 
to. There are no trolleys; there are no regularly scheduled buses. 
Halting or delaying funds to address the problem is inappropriate.
  I think the cliche, ``Pay now or pay more later,'' is appropriate. 
What we would be ``paying'' for is potentially the loss of life, loss 
of economic opportunities, and the loss of convenience for the 
traveling public. Isn't this an issue of quality of life? I think so.
  Third, the Highway Trust Fund is supported by highway users for 
highway construction and maintenance. It is a dedicated tax for a 
dedicated purpose. The people of Missouri are paying highway fund taxes 
and not getting a full dollar back for their highways. And to take away 
some of the money that they have put in because of totally unrelated 
concerns is inappropriate as a punitive sanction.
  The 105th Congress spent the entire Congress, almost, working on a 
transportation policy.
  One of the most contentious debates we had at the time and the 
significant outcomes of that debate was the issue of the trust fund. 
The Congress finally agreed to and the President signed into law what I 
refer to as the Bond-Chafee provision which says that the money goes in 
as the money comes out the next year for transportation and programs 
authorized by law.
  Included in TEA-21--highway dollars being spent on--is $8.1 billion 
over 6 years for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement 
Program. This is money dedicated to helping States and local 
governments meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Under current 
law, CMAQ--as it is called--funding will continue without interruption, 
but highway construction could be halted or face a delay.
  Using a ``dedicated tax for a dedicated purpose'' as a hammer in this 
instance is, I believe, inappropriate and unfair.
  I do not view this legislation as an attack on the Clean Air Act. It 
is a matter of common sense.
  Some may ask, if they do not already know, what precipitated the 
introduction of this legislation. I contemplated introducing this bill 
in the past but had other matters that were more important. But on 
November 8, 1998, the San Francisco-based Sierra Club filed suit in the 
District of Columbia District Court against the EPA to force the EPA to 
mandate sanctions not just on St. Louis and the nonattainment area but 
on the entire State of Missouri and to make these sanctions 
retroactive. That action, I believe, is irresponsible and extreme.
  The EPA itself chose not to impose sanctions on the St Louis area or 
the State of Missouri because the State and the nonattainment area are 
doing everything that is necessary to come into compliance. The St. 
Louis area has adopted an inspection/maintenance program. They have 
instituted a plan to reduce volatile organic compound emissions by at 
least 15 percent. They have opted into EPA's reformulated

[[Page 3357]]

gasoline program. And the St. Louis Regional Clean Air Partnership has 
been formed to encourage voluntary actions. In these circumstances, the 
Sierra Club lawsuit is purely punitive and purely unwarranted, but it 
is possible as long as we have this legislation on the books.
  I do not personally know one Member of the Senate who fought for 
highway funding for his or her State's highway needs who would support 
actions to take that funding away, especially in a frivolous lawsuit by 
a group with a different agenda, with different priorities than the 
citizens of the State who are paying in the money. If this provision of 
law is left in place, what is happening in Missouri could happen 
elsewhere. Highway sanctions are in place for Helena, MT, and a 
situation is developing in Atlanta, GA, which has been brought to my 
attention.
  There are those who say you can count the number of times highway 
sanctions have been imposed on one hand, but that still is too many. I 
disagree with the linking of highway funds and clean air attainment. We 
must address both. Quality of life requires both clear air and safe 
highways. I am dedicated to both. I hope we can have hearings and move 
on this measure in the near future.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 496. A bill to provide for the establishment of an assistance 
program for health insurance consumers; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                the health care consumer assistance act

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Health Care 
Consumer Assistance Act, along with my colleague from Oregon, Mr. 
Wyden. This legislation creates a consumer assistance program that is 
key to patient protections in the health insurance market.
  In 1997, President Clinton's Health Quality Commission identified the 
need for consumer assistance programs that allow consumers access to 
accurate, easily understood information and get assistance in making 
informed decisions about health plans and providers. Today, only a 
loose patchwork of consumer assistance services exists. And, while a 
number of sources provide assistance, most are limited. Many consumer 
groups have advocated for the establishment of consumer assistance 
programs to support consumers' growing need of information.
  The legislation I am introducing today gives states grants to 
establish nonprofit, private health care ombudsman programs designed to 
help consumers understand and act on their health care choices, rights, 
and responsibilities. Under my bill, the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services will offer funds for states to select an independent, 
nonprofit agency to provide the following services to consumers: 
information relating to choices, rights, and responsibilities within 
the plans they select; operate a 1-800 telephone hotline to respond to 
consumer requests for information, advice and assistance; produce and 
disseminate educational materials about patients' rights; provide 
assistance and representation to people who wish to appeal the denial, 
termination, or reduction of health care services, or a refusal to pay 
for health services; and collect and disseminate data about inquiries, 
problems and grievances handled by the consumer assistance program.
  This program has been championed by Ron Pollack of Families USA and 
Beverly Malone of the American Nurses Association, who served as 
members of the President's Commission on Quality, as well as numerous 
other consumer advocates.
  Mr. President, I have joined with many of my Democratic colleagues in 
sponsoring S. 6, the Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999. I am pleased 
that S. 6 would establish a consumer assistance program, similar to 
that established by my legislation. My purpose today is to emphasize 
the importance of such a consumer protection program. This legislation 
is not without controversy, but I believe that American consumers 
deserve protection and assistance as they attempt to navigate the often 
confusing and complex world of health insurance.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of my bill 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 496

       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 ``Health Care Consumer 
     Assistance Act''.

     SEC. 2. GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     (referred to in this Act as the ``Secretary'') shall award 
     grants to States to enable such States to enter into 
     contracts for the establishment of consumer assistance 
     programs designed to assist consumers of health insurance in 
     understanding their rights, responsibilities and choices 
     among health insurance products.
       (b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section a State shall prepare and submit to the 
     Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and 
     containing such information as the Secretary may require, 
     including a State plan that describes--
       (1) the manner in which the State will solicit proposals 
     for, and enter into a contract with, an entity eligible under 
     section 3 to serve as the health insurance consumer office 
     for the State; and
       (2) the manner in which the State will ensure that advice 
     and assistance services for health insurance consumers are 
     coordinated through the office described in paragraph (1).
       (c) Amount of Grant.--
       (1) In general.--From amounts appropriated under section 5 
     for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall award a grant to a 
     State in an amount that bears the same ratio to such amounts 
     as the number of individuals within the State covered under a 
     health insurance plan (as determined by the Secretary) bears 
     to the total number of individuals covered under a health 
     insurance plan in all States (as determined by the 
     Secretary). Any amounts provided to a State under this 
     section that are not used by the State shall be remitted to 
     the Secretary and reallocated in accordance with this 
     paragraph.
       (2) Minimum amount.--In no case shall the amount provided 
     to a State under a grant under this section for a fiscal year 
     be less than an amount equal to .5 percent of the amount 
     appropriated for such fiscal year under section 5.

     SEC. 3. ELIGIBILITY OF STATE ENTITIES.

       To be eligible to enter into a contract with a State and 
     operate as the health insurance consumer office for the State 
     under this Act, an entity shall--
       (1) be an independent, nonprofit entity with demonstrated 
     experience in serving the needs of health care consumers 
     (particularly low income and other consumers who are most in 
     need of consumer assistance);
       (2) prepare and submit to the State a proposal containing 
     such information as the State may require;
       (3) demonstrate that the entity has the technical, 
     organizational, and professional capacity to operate the 
     health insurance consumer office within the State;
       (4) provide assurances that the entity has no real or 
     perceived conflict of interest in providing advice and 
     assistance to consumers regarding health insurance and that 
     the entity is independent of health insurance plans, 
     companies, providers, payers, and regulators of care; and
       (5) demonstrate that, using assistance provided by the 
     State, the entity has the capacity to provide assistance and 
     advice throughout the State to public and private health 
     insurance consumers regardless of the source of coverage.

     SEC. 4. USE OF FUNDS.

       (a) By State.--A State shall use amounts received under a 
     grant under this Act to enter into a contract described in 
     section 2(a) to provide funds for the establishment and 
     operation of a health insurance consumer office.
       (b) By Entity.--
       (1) In general.--An entity that enters into a contract with 
     a State under this Act shall use amounts received under the 
     contract to establish and operate a health insurance consumer 
     office.
       (2) Noncompliance.--If the State fails to enter into a 
     contract under subsection (a), the Secretary shall withhold 
     amounts to be provided to the State under this Act and use 
     such amounts to enter into the contract described in 
     paragraph (1) for the State.
       (c) Activities of Office.--A health insurance consumer 
     office established under this Act shall--
       (1) provide information to health insurance consumers 
     within the State relating to choice of health insurance 
     products and the rights and responsibilities of consumers and 
     insurers under such products;
       (2) operate toll-free telephone hotlines to respond to 
     requests for information, advice or assistance concerning 
     health insurance in a timely and efficient manner;
       (3) produce and disseminate educational materials 
     concerning health insurance consumer and patient rights;

[[Page 3358]]

       (4) provide assistance and representation (in nonlitigative 
     settings) to individuals who desire to appeal the denial, 
     termination, or reduction of health care services, or the 
     refusal to pay for such services, under a health insurance 
     plan;
       (5) make referrals to appropriate private and public 
     individuals or entities so that inquiries, problems, and 
     grievances with respect to health insurance can be handled 
     promptly and efficiently; and
       (6) collect data concerning inquiries, problems, and 
     grievances handled by the office and periodically disseminate 
     a compilation and analysis of such information to employers, 
     health plans, health insurers, regulatory agencies, and the 
     general public.
       (d) Availability of Services.--The office shall not 
     discriminate in the provision of services regardless of the 
     source of the individual's health insurance coverage or 
     prospective coverage, including individuals covered under 
     employer-provided insurance, self-funded plans, the medicare 
     or medicaid programs under title XVIII or XIX of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 and 1396 et seq.), or under any 
     other Federal or State health care program.
       (e) Subcontracts.--An office established under this section 
     may carry out activities and provide services through 
     contracts entered into with 1 or more nonprofit entities so 
     long as the office can demonstrate that all of the 
     requirements of this Act are met by the office.
       (f) Training.--
       (1) In general.--An office established under this section 
     shall ensure that personnel employed by the office possess 
     the skills, expertise, and information necessary to provide 
     the services described in subsection (c).
       (2) Contracts.--To meet the requirement of paragraph (1), 
     an office may enter into contracts with 1 or more nonprofit 
     entities for the training (both through technical and 
     educational assistance) of personnel and volunteers. To be 
     eligible to receive a contract under this paragraph, an 
     entity shall be independent of health insurance plans, 
     companies, providers, payers, and regulators of care.
       (3) Limitation.--Not to exceed 7 percent of the amount 
     awarded to an entity under a contract under subsection (a) 
     for a fiscal year may be used for the provision of training 
     under this section.
       (g) Administrative Costs.--Not to exceed 1 percent of the 
     amount of a block grant awarded to the State under subsection 
     (a) for a fiscal year may be used for administrative expenses 
     by the State.
       (h) Term.--A contract entered into under subsection (a) 
     shall be for a term of 3 years.

     SEC. 5. FUNDING.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary in each 
     fiscal year to carry out this Act.
       (b) Report of Secretary.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the 
     Secretary shall prepare and submit to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress a report that contains--
       (1) a determination by the Secretary of whether amounts 
     appropriated to carry out this Act for the fiscal year for 
     which this report is being prepared are sufficient to fully 
     fund this Act in such fiscal year; and
       (2) with respect to a fiscal year for which the Secretary 
     determines under paragraph (1) that sufficient amounts are 
     not appropriated, the recommendations of the Secretary for 
     fully funding this Act through the use of additional funding 
     sources.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN:
  S. 498. A bill to require vessels entering the United States waters 
to provide earlier notice of the entry, to clarify the requirements for 
those vessels and the authority of the Coast Guard over those vessels, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


       the coastal protection and vessel control improvement act

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as we speak, rescue crews are fighting 
valiantly to contain the damage from the wreck of the tanker New 
Carissa off of Coos Bay, Oregon three weeks ago. But the clock is 
ticking, the water is rising, and time is running short. An 
environmental disaster of truly alarming proportions is staring my 
state in the face.
  Thousands of gallons of fuel oil have already leaked out of the 
wrecked ship and thousands more may be spilled along our precious 
coastline within days, if not hours.
  As Oregonians struggle to make the best of a bad situation, it is not 
too early to start talking about how we prevent the next addition to 
the legacy of New Carissa. It seems clear to me that we need to look at 
the pernicious practice of foreign flagging. How many gallons of oil 
need to spill and how many miles of coastline have to be destroyed 
before we stop allowing unseaworthy vessels manned by untrained crews 
into our coastal waters.
  It seems easier to register a supertanker in some foreign countries 
than it is to register an automobile in Portland, Oregon. As long as 
this so-called Flag of Convenience system continues, it's only a matter 
of time before the next New Carissa runs aground on a local beach. Yet 
our maritime policy continues to allow it.
  Grave concerns have also been raised about the amount and quality of 
information being released to the public about this disaster. People 
who live in the area simply have not been told what to expect. That is 
unacceptable. When disaster strikes, government has an ironclad 
responsibility to give people as much information as possible.
  Today, I am introducing legislation that focuses on avoiding 
disasters like the New Carissa. We need to stop playing Russian 
roulette with our coastal resources and the communities that depend on 
them.
  Congressman DeFazio has authored companion legislation in the House 
of Representatives, which was adopted as an amendment to the Coast 
Guard Reauthorization Bill.
  This legislation requires all vessels, foreign and domestic, to 
notify the Coast Guard when they intend to enter our country's 
territorial waters, allows the Coast Guard to bar them from entry if 
there are safety concerns, and gives the Coast Guard the authority to 
direct the movements of such vessels in our waters in hazardous 
situations. This bill would have given the Coast Guard the ability to 
block the New Carissa from allowing its deadly course of sailing so 
close to shore during a hazardous gale, a practice that local pilots 
shun.
  In other words, had this bill been in place, the Coast Guard would 
have had the ability to stop this tragedy before it occurred, instead 
of having to clean up after it.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and ask 
unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 498

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF COAST GUARD AUTHORITY TO CONTROL 
                   VESSELS IN TERRITORIAL WATERS OF THE UNITED 
                   STATES.

       The Ports and Waterways Safety Act (33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 15. ENTRY OF VESSELS INTO TERRITORIAL SEA; DIRECTION 
                   OF VESSELS BY COAST GUARD.

       ``(a) Notification of Coast Guard.--
       ``(1) Notification.--Under regulations prescribed by the 
     Secretary, a commercial vessel entering the territorial sea 
     of the United States shall notify the Secretary not later 
     than 24 hours before that entry.
       ``(2) Information.--The regulations under paragraph (1) 
     shall specify that the notification shall contain the 
     following information:
       ``(A) The name of the vessel.
       ``(B) The port or place of destination in the United 
     States.
       ``(C) The time of entry into the territorial sea.
       ``(D) With respect to the fuel oil tanks of the vessel--
       ``(i) the capacity of those tanks; and
       ``(ii) the estimated quantity of fuel oil that will be 
     contained in those tanks at the time of entry into the 
     territorial sea.
       ``(E) Any information requested by the Secretary to 
     demonstrate compliance with applicable international 
     agreements to which the United States is a party.
       ``(F) If the vessel is carrying dangerous cargo, a 
     description of that cargo.
       ``(G) A description of any hazardous conditions on the 
     vessel.
       ``(H) Any other information requested by the Secretary.
       ``(b) Denial of Entry.--The Secretary may deny entry of a 
     vessel into the territorial sea of the United States if--
       ``(1) the Secretary has not received notification for the 
     vessel in accordance with subsection (a); or
       ``(2) the vessel is not in compliance with any other 
     applicable law relating to marine safety, security, or 
     environmental protection.
       ``(c) Direction of Vessel.--The Secretary may direct the 
     operation of any vessel in the navigable waters of the United 
     States as necessary during hazardous circumstances, including 
     the absence of a pilot required by

[[Page 3359]]

     Federal or State law, weather, casualty, vessel traffic, or 
     the poor condition of the vessel.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Levin, 
        Mrs. Murray, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. 
        Durbin, and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 499. A bill to establish a congressional commemorative medal for 
organ donors and their families; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
and Urban Affairs.


            the gift of life congressional medal act of 1999

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I take great pleasure today in introducing 
the Gift of Life Congressional Medal Act of 1999. With this 
legislation, which doesn't cost taxpayers a penny, Congress has the 
opportunity to recognize and encourage potential donors, and give hope 
to over 52,000 Americans who have end-stage disease. As a heart and 
lung transplant surgeon, I saw one in four of my patients die because 
of the lack of available donors. Public awareness simply has not kept 
up with the relatively new science of transplantation. As public 
servants, we need to do all we can to raise awareness about the gift of 
life.
  Under this bill, each donor or donor family will be eligible to 
receive a commemorative Congressional medal. It is not expected that 
all families, many of whom wish to remain anonymous, will take 
advantage of this opportunity. The program will be coordinated by the 
regional organ procurement organizations [OPO's] and managed by the 
entity administering the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. 
Upon request of the family or individual, a public official will 
present the medal to the donor or the family. This creates a wonderful 
opportunity to honor those sharing life through donation and increase 
public awareness. Some researchers have estimated that it may be 
possible to increase the number of organ donations by 80 percent 
through public education.
  Any one of us, or any member of our families, could need a life 
saving transplant. We would then be placed on a waiting list to 
anxiously await our turn, or our death. The number of people on the 
list has more than doubled since 1990--and a new name is added to the 
list every 18 minutes. In my home State of Tennessee, 62 Tennesseans 
died in 1998 while waiting, and more than 775 people are in need of a 
transplant. Nationally, because of a lack of organs, close to 5,000 
listed individuals died in 1998.
  However, the official waiting list reflects only those who have been 
lucky enough to make it into the medical care system and to pass the 
financial hurdles. If you include all those reaching end-stage disease, 
the number of people potentially needing organs or bone marrow, very 
likely over 120,000, becomes staggering. Only a small fraction of that 
number would ever receive transplants, even if they had adequate 
insurance. There simply are not enough organ and tissue donors, even to 
meet present demand.
  Federal policies surrounding the issue of organ transplantation are 
difficult. Whenever you deal with whether someone lives or dies, there 
are no easy answers. There are between 15,000 and 20,000 potential 
cadaveric donors each year, yet inexcusably, in 1997 there were only 
some 5,400 actual donors. That's why we need you to help us educate 
others about the facts surrounding tissue and organ donation.
  Mr. President, there has been unprecedented cooperation, on both 
sides of the aisle, and a growing commitment to awaken public 
compassion on behalf of those who need organ transplants. It is my very 
great pleasure to introduce this bill on behalf of a group of Senators 
who have already contributed in extremely significant ways to the cause 
of organ transplantation. And we are proud to ask you to join us, in 
encouraging people to give life to others.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. 
        Helms):
  S. 500. A bill to amend section 991(a) of title 28, United States 
Code, to require certain members of the United States Sentencing 
Commission to be selected from among individuals who are victims of a 
crime of violence; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


            united states sentencing commission legislation

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill 
that I sponsored in the last Congress to give victims of crime a 
greater voice in sentencing. My bill, which is being cosponsored by 
Senators Jeffords and Helms, would reserve two of the seven seats on 
the United States Sentencing Commission for victims of violent crimes.
  Mr. President, the Sentencing Commission is an independent entity 
within the judicial branch that establishes sentencing policies and 
practices for the Federal courts. This includes sentencing guidelines 
that prescribe the appropriate form and severity of punishment for 
offenders convicted of Federal crimes.
  The U.S. sentencing Commission is composed of seven voting members 
who are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the 
Senate, for six-year terms. The Commission also includes two non-voting 
members. Of the seven voting members of the Sentencing Commission, 
three must be Federal judges.
  Under my bill, two of the four seats on the Sentencing Commission 
that are not filled by Federal judges would be reserved for victims of 
a crime of violence or, in the case of a homicide, an immediate family 
member of such a victim. My bill utilizes the definition of a crime of 
violence that is found in section 16 of title 18 of the United States 
Code.
  All seven voting seats on the Sentencing Commission are vacant. Now 
is the right time to give victims of crime a voice by requiring that 
two of those vacant seats must be filled by Americans who have been 
victimized by violent crimes.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was order to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 500

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. COMPOSITION OF UNITED STATES SENTENCING 
                   COMMISSION.

       (a) In General.--Section 991(a) of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after ``same political party,'' 
     the following: ``Of the members who are not Federal judges, 
     not less than 2 members shall be individuals who are victims 
     of a crime of violence (as that term is defined in section 16 
     of title 18) or, in the case of a homicide, an immediate 
     family member of such a victim.''.
       (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to any appointment made on or after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 501. A bill to address resource management issues in Glacier Bay 
National Park, Alaska; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.


                       glacier bay fisheries act

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am today introducing--together with 
my good friend Senator Stevens--new legislation to ensure that the 
marine waters of Glacier Bay National Park remain open to the fisheries 
that have been conducted there for many, many years.
  For a number of years, the Park Service has attempted to seize 
authority over fisheries management in Glacier Bay from the State of 
Alaska, which holds title to the marine waters and submerged lands 
within Glacier Bay National Park. This is an infringement of the 
State's sovereignty under the constitutional doctrine of equal footing, 
as confirmed by Congress in the Submerged Lands Act, and the Alaska 
Statehood Act.
  As my colleagues should all be aware, commercial fisheries have been 
conducted in these waters for well over 100 years, since long before 
the federal government became interested in them. Subsistence fishing 
and gathering by local residents has been practiced for up to 9,000 
years, and perhaps longer.
  Yet today, officials of the National Park Service want Glacier Bay 
off limits to those who have depended on it

[[Page 3360]]

for their sustenance and livelihoods for generations.
  Most recently, agents of the Park Service harassed a number of 
commercial crab fishermen who were fishing in areas which have always 
been open to them. Some of these were areas which may be closed under 
legislation adopted last year, but for which the Park Service has not 
yet promulgated regulations to effect the closure.
  Although Park Service officials now say they merely asked for 
voluntary compliance and attempted to educate fishermen about their 
plans, the fishermen tell a different, and more sinister, story.
  This particular crab fishery is only six days long, with the first 
two days being crucial to a fisherman's financial success. Because of 
this, fishermen must work literally around the clock for the first 48 
to 72 hours. After the first two days, their earning potential--even 
for a top fisherman--drops from almost $60,000 per day to less than 
$20,000.
  It is important to note that these are not large scale fisheries. We 
are talking about a small handful of fishermen, some working solely 
with their families.
  Out of the 14 vessels working in the Bay during the recent fishery, 
11 were boarded--right in the middle of those crucial first two days--
by armed and intimidating Park Service agents. Many were either told 
they were in closed waters, or threatened that if they did not move, 
they would be prosecuted. Needless to say, these fishermen are law-
abiding members of society, so they pulled up their fishing gear and 
moved, taking very serious financial losses as a result.
   Mr. President, let me ask you how difficult it would have been to 
write a letter before the season opened and send it to these 14 
fishermen? How hard would it be to send a letter to 20 fishermen? or to 
50? In other words, Mr. President, how hard would it have been to avoid 
such confrontational and damaging tactics?
  It would not have been hard at all, Mr. President, and the fact that 
the agency did not choose to do so is just one more example of how 
unfairly the Park Service has behaved to those who live and work in 
Alaska.
  It is time for this to stop, and to ensure that it does, I am today 
offering a simple, clean solution. First, the bill authorizes 
subsistence fishing and gathering under the existing federal governing 
authority for such activities. Second, the bill authorizes the State of 
Alaska to conduct its marine fisheries without interference, except a 
fishery for Dungeness crab, for which a compensation plan has already 
been adopted. And third, the bill authorizes the use of up to 
$2,000,000 per year--which the Park Service is already collecting but 
which it has failed to use for the purpose intended by Congress--to be 
used to pay damages to fishermen who were unfairly harmed.
   Mr. President, this is a matter of simple fairness. These are not 
new fisheries, but old ones--fisheries which throughout their long 
history have never caused a problem, and are today more tightly 
controlled than ever by State of Alaska law and regulation.
  Fishermen have caused no harm here. The only harm has been caused 
either by the arrogant demands of those who want the park to 
themselves, or those who are well-meaning but ignorant of the facts. It 
is time the former become better neighbors, and time for the latter to 
learn the truth.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of our legislation be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 501

       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 ``Glacier Bay Fisheries Act''.

     SEC. 2. RESOURCE HARVESTING.

       (a) In Glacier Bay National Park, the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall accommodate--
       (1) the conduct of subsistence fishing and gathering under 
     Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 3111 et. seq.); and
       (2) the conduct by the State of Alaska, in accordance with 
     the principles of sustained yield, of marine commercial 
     fisheries, except fishing for Dungeness crab in the waters of 
     the Beardslee Islands and upper Dundas Bay.

     SEC. 3. CLAIMS FOR LOST EARNINGS.

       Section 3(g) of Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-2(g)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) to pay an aggregate of not more than $2,000,000 per 
     fiscal year in actual and punitive damages to persons that, 
     at any time after January 1, 1999, suffered or suffer a loss 
     in earnings from commercial fisheries legally conducted in 
     the marine waters of Glacier Bay National Park, due to any 
     action by an officer, employee, or agent of any Federal 
     department or agency, that interferes with any person legally 
     fishing or attempting to fish in such commercial fisheries.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ASHCROFT (for himself and Mr. Domenici):
  S. 502. A bill to protect social security; to the Committee on the 
Budget and the Committee on Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant to 
the order of August 4, 1977, with instructions that if one Committee 
reports, the other Committee have thirty days to report or be 
discharged.


            The protect social security benefits act of 1999

  Mr. ASCHROFT. Mr. President, there is no more worthy government 
obligation than ensuring that those who paid a lifetime of Social 
Security taxes will receive their full Social Security benefits. Social 
Security is a national, cultural and legal obligation. Social Security 
is our most import social program, a contact between the government and 
its citizens. Americans, including one million Missourians, depend on 
this commitment.
  This is more than just a governmental commitment. We have a 
responsibility as a culture to care for the elderly. Social Security is 
the only retirement income most of our seniors receive. It is our 
obligation, passed down from generation to generation, to provide 
retirement security for every American.
  As individuals, all of us care about Social Security because we know 
the benefits it pays to our mothers and fathers, relatives and friends. 
And we think of the Social Security taxes we and our children pay--up 
to 12.4 percent of our income. We pay these taxes with the 
understanding that they help our parents and their friends, and we hope 
that our taxes will somehow, someday make it possible to help pay for 
our own retirements.
  In my case, thinking of Social Security brings to mind friends and 
constituents such as Lenus Hill of Bolivar, MO, who relies on her 
Social Security to meet living expenses. Billy Yarberry lives on a farm 
near Springfield and depends on Social Security. And there is Rev. 
Walter Keisker of Cape Girardeau, who will be 100 years old next July 
and lives on Social Security. These faces bring meaning to Social 
Security.
  Whenever I meet with folks in Missouri, I am asked, ``Senator, you 
won't let them use my Social Security taxes to pay for the United 
Nations, will you?'' Or, ``Why can't I get my full benefits if I work 
after 65?'' Or, ``You know I need my Social Security, don't you?''
  And then there are the letters on Social Security I get every day.
  Ed and Beverly Shelton of Independence, MO, write: ``Aren't the 
budget surpluses the result of Social Security taxes generating more 
revenue than is needed to fund current benefits? Therefore, the Social 
Security surplus is the surplus!* * * Yes, we are senior citizens and 
receive a very limited amount of Social Security. We are children who 
survived the Great Depression and World War II so we know how to 
stretch a dollar and rationed goods--just wish Congress were as careful 
with spending our money as we are!''
  These concerns are why I am introducing today the Protect Social 
Security Benefits Act. Americans who have devoted 12% of their wages to 
the Social Security Trust Fund deserve their full Social Security 
payments now and in the century to come. The bill is part of a five 
part package that, taken together, seeks to provide greater protection 
for the Social Security Trust Fund.

[[Page 3361]]

  The substance and message of these provisions is that Social Security 
must be protected: protected from politicians who raid Social Security 
to finance additional deficits; protected from those who want to gamble 
with Social Security in the stock market; protected so that investment 
decisions ensure current and future benefits; protected so that seniors 
who work get full benefits; protected so that we keep our commitment to 
America's retirees.
  The Ashcroft Protect Social Security Benefits Act of 1999 prevents 
the use of surpluses in the Social Security Trust Funds to finance 
deficits in the rest of the federal budget. We must build a wall so 
high around the Social Security Trust Funds so that it cannot be used 
to pay for new government spending. Social Security should not finance 
new spending. But that is exactly what has happened in the past, is now 
happening, and will continue happening in the future, unless changes 
are made. It must end.
  Specifically, the bill makes it out of order for the House or Senate 
to pass, or even debate, a budget or bill that uses Social Security 
surpluses to finance deficits in the rest of the budget. In both the 
House and Senate, a three-fifths vote, or a super majority, would be 
required to change that. Let me assure you that this is extremely 
unlikely. We have enough trouble getting 51 Senators to agree to 
anything, let alone 60. Thus, it would be extremely difficult to use 
the Social Security surplus to fund new deficit spending.
  Two other bills I am supporting will also reduce debt and thereby 
strengthen our economy, Social Security and our future. The first bill 
structures the payment of the national debt by amortizing it--paying it 
off in installments--over the next 30 years. The second bill reduces 
the public debt limit every two years as an additional incentive to 
reduce borrowing. Additional surpluses in the Social Security Trust 
Fund can buy down publicly-held debt. By reducing the public debt, my 
plan will make it easier for America to meet its Social Security 
obligations in three ways. First, over the long run, paying off the 
debt will lower interest payments, which are now over $200 billion 
annually, equaling about 15% of the budget. Second, by relieving 
America of the burden of the $3.8 trillion national debt over the next 
30 years, it will free up more resources that may be able to meet 
Social Security obligations in the future. Finally, a debt-free America 
will have a stronger, faster-growing economy, and will be better 
equipped to come up with the money to redeem the Trust Fund when we 
need it.
  We must remember that federal debt incurs very real costs, in the 
form of interest payments and higher interest rates. With that in mind, 
we cannot afford not to pay off the debt. While it will cost money to 
pay off the debt, it is better to budget for those costs now. On this 
point, I agree with President Clinton. His idea to use Social Security 
surpluses to pay down our existing debt is a wise one, and I am 
offering a responsible plan to make it happen.
  Finally, and given the fact that Social Security surpluses are 
routinely being used to finance deficits in the rest of the budget of 
the federal government, it is time to decide carefully how Social 
Security should be treated in any proposed constitutional amendment to 
balance the budget. I have always supported a balanced budget 
amendment. In the past, I have supported an effort that did not 
distinguish between Social Security accounts and the rest of the 
federal budget. However, last year's raid of the Social Security 
surplus to fund other government spending under the guise of 
``emergency spending'' has convinced me that Social Security must be 
protected under our constitution. Social Security must be walled off 
for special treatment in any proposed balanced budget amendment. We 
must make clear that the federal budget should be balanced without 
counting any Social Security surpluses.
  Walling off the trust funds is the first step, not the only step, 
needed to protect Social Security. This is the right way to start the 
effort to improve Social Security so it is strong for our children and 
grandchildren.
  To do this, we need to be honest, realizing that, for now, time is on 
our side to make thoughtful improvements. For the past few months, I 
have comprehensively reviewed Social Security. My conviction is that 
understanding must always come before reforming. The following 
summarizes the facts about Social Security.
  Social Security does now and will in the near future accumulate 
annual surpluses. Together, income from payroll taxes and interest is 
greater than the amount of benefits being paid out. The Social Security 
Trustees believe that these surpluses will continue each year for the 
next 14 years. In that time, a $2.8 trillion total surplus will 
accumulate.
  In the year 2013, however, when more baby boomers will be in 
retirement, annual benefit payments will exceed annual taxes received 
by Social Security through taxes and interest. As a result, Social 
Security will run an annual deficit. By 2021, annual benefit payments 
will exceed annual taxes received by Social Security and interest 
earned on the accumulated surpluses. In the year 2032, Social Security 
payroll taxes will not only be insufficient to pay benefits; the 
surpluses will be used up. Social Security will be bankrupt.
  Bipartisan efforts are underway to address this long-term situation. 
I will take an active part in this work. We must strengthen Social 
Security's capacity to pay benefits in full beyond the year 2032.
  But there is no getting around the fact that a key to the long-term 
solvency of Social Security is how the current mushrooming Social 
Security surplus is invested, managed and spent. That's why the Protect 
Social Security Benefits Act focuses on how the current Social Security 
surplus is invested and managed.
  Where is the Social Security surplus? This question helps us 
understand what the Social Security surplus is, and is not. In truth, 
the Trust Funds have no money, only interest-bearing notes. It would be 
foolish to have money in the trust fund that earned no interest or had 
no return. In return for the Social Security notes, Social Security 
taxes are sent to the U.S. Treasury and mingled with other government 
revenues, where the entire pool of cash pays the government's day-to-
day expenses. While the Trust Funds records now show a total of $857 
billion in the fund, these assets exist only in the form of government 
securities, or debt. According to the Washington Post, ``The entire 
Social Security Trust Fund, all [$857] billion or so of it, fits 
readily in four ordinary, brown, accordion-style folders that one can 
easily hold in both hands. The 174 certificates reside in a plain 
combination-lock filing cabinet on the third floor of the bureau's 
office building.''
  In recent years, Social Security surpluses have been used to finance 
deficit spending in the rest of the federal budget. Take Fiscal Year 
1998 for example. The Social Security surplus was $99 billion. The 
deficit in the rest of the government budget was $29 billion. So $29 
billion--or 30% of the Social Security surplus--financed other 
government programs that were not paid for with general tax revenues. 
this occurred despite President Clinton's promise to save ``every penny 
of any surplus'' for Social Security.
  For next year, this money shuffling is even greater. To quote the 
Senate Budget Committee's February 1, 1999, analysis:

       Conclusion: the President's budget, despite the rhetoric, 
     not only spends all the non-Social Security surplus over the 
     next five years, while providing no meaningful tax relief to 
     American families, but also dips in the Social Security 
     surplus for $146 billion to pay for the President's spending 
     priorities.

  This kind of money shuffling must end. I cannot go back to Lenus Hill 
or Billy Yarberry and tell them that I stood by silently as the 
government devoted--spent half of their retirement money to paying for 
the President's new spending initiatives. We must stop the dishonest 
practice of hiding new government deficits with Social Security 
surpluses.
  The Protect Social Security Benefits Act of 1999 is designed to 
cripple attempts to use surpluses in the Social

[[Page 3362]]

Security Trust Funds to pay for deficits in the rest of the federal 
budget. Specifically, the bill states that it is out of order for the 
House and Senate to pass--or even debate--a budget that uses Social 
Security surpluses to finance new debt in the rest of the budget. This 
provision could only be overridden if three-fifths of the House or 
Senate openly vote to bypass this rule.
  Three times Congress has passed laws that tried to take Social 
Security off-budget. These efforts have called for accounting 
statements that require the government to keep the financial status of 
Social Security separate from the rest of the budget. But these efforts 
are inadequate unless Congress puts in place safeguards that protect 
surpluses in Social Security from financing new government spending.
  Right now, such procedures do not exist in current law or in senate 
rules. On the contrary, current law and senate rules create 21 separate 
points of order that apply to spending increases and tax increases, 
making it difficult to protect Social Security surpluses. But none 
actually stop these surpluses from paying for new budget deficits. We 
need a point of order protecting Social Security surpluses from 
irresponsible government raiding.
  The Protect Social Security Benefits Act would create precisely such 
a point of order. This would prohibit the federal government from 
running a federal funds (on-budget) deficit without 60 votes, or what 
is known as a super-majority. With no on-budget deficit to finance, we 
would use the entire Social Security surplus to shrink the publicly-
held federal debt. Reducing the publicly-held debt would cut annual 
interest costs that now cost $200 billion and 15% of the entire federal 
government budget. Eliminating this interest cost would provide more 
flexibility to address the long-term financing difficulties Social 
Security now faces that could someday jeopardize payment of full 
benefits.
  The only exception to this point of order would be in time of war. If 
Congress were to declare war, and the government needed to go into 
deficit in order to protect our national security, then the point of 
order would not apply. It would remain in effect at all other times. In 
the event that the House or Senate did not pass a budget resolution, 
the point of order would apply to all appropriations bills passed after 
September 1. This fail-safe would ensure that the President and the 
Congress could not raid the Social Security fund for irresponsible 
spending, as they did last year to the tune of $22 billion.
  The Ashcroft Protect Social Security Benefits Act is the first 
provision in a multi-part Social Security package that will address 
vital issues relating to the management, investment, and taxation of 
Social Security. This plan is designed to protect the Social Security 
system. More importantly, it is designed to protect the American 
people--from debt, from bad investments, from misinformation, and from 
attempts to spend our retirement dollars on current government 
spending. While I value the Social Security system, I value the 
American people, people like Lenus Hill and the one million other 
Missourians who receive Social Security benefits, more. My primary 
responsibility is to them. My plan to protect the Social Security 
system will protect the American people first, and I urge my colleagues 
to join me in support of this plan.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLARD:
  S. 503. A bill designating certain land in the San Isabel National 
Forest in the State of Colorado as the ``Spanish Peaks Wilderness''; to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                  SPANISH PEAKS WILDERNESS ACT OF 1999

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, wilderness is described in the law as 
lands that are, ``* * * in contrast with those areas where man and his 
own works dominate the landscape, * * * an area where the earth and its 
community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a 
visitor who does not remain.'' With today's introduction of the Spanish 
Peaks Wilderness bill congressmen Scott McInnis, Bob Schaffer and I are 
setting aside around 18,000 acres of land that more than meets the 
intent of the authors of the 1964 Wilderness Act. This land will be an 
important addition to wilderness in Colorado.
  Spanish Peaks had been considered for inclusion in previous 
wilderness bills. However, because of unresolved issues it was not 
appropriate to designate it in the past. Those issues included various 
inholdings, the use of an old access road in the wilderness area, as 
well as the potential coal bed methane production on portions of the 
land. Those issues have either been resolved in this bill or they have 
been resolved through other methods. The resolution of these issues has 
maintained the integrity of the proposed wilderness area as well as 
protecting the needs of the local community.
  Because of this, the legislation should have the backing of the local 
community, Colorado environmental groups, and the majority of the 
Colorado delegation. There is no reason why it cannot be passed 
quickly.
  All Colorado wilderness bills should go through the process this bill 
went through. Congressman McInnis, Congressman Schaffer and I decided 
that cooperation, consensus, and communication were essential to 
success. Therefore, we casted our net broadly for concerns, and when 
they were raised in good faith we actually sat down and worked them 
out. I have been struck by the fact that when people are given the 
opportunity to be part of the process they feel like they have a stake 
in the outcome and they try to be constructive in their criticisms. 
Because of constructive critics like the Huerfano County Commissioners, 
this legislation is better now then it was when they first looked at 
it.
  While the legislation is complete, we are still seeking clarification 
on one point. The Huerfano County Commissioners are seeking to have a 
trail that is slightly inside the wilderness area, as designated in the 
legislation, excluded. My staff has spoken with the local Forest 
Service staffer and they appear to have no objection to this change. It 
is still uncertain whether we actually need to change the legislation 
to do this or whether the map can be adjusted by the Forest Service 
without any legislative changes. If it is the former than we will make 
that change prior to passing it out of the Senate. If it is the latter, 
we will exchange letters with the Forest Service to ensure we are 
talking about the same trail in the same place. This change should not 
be of concern. It is only slightly inside the boundaries and any 
changes we make to exclude it would be of only a slight impact on the 
entire designation.
  I want to thank Congressman McInnis, Congressman Schaffer, and the 
local community for working through this process. When the Colorado 
delegation works as a team they work the best for the State of 
Colorado.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CLELAND:
  S. 504. A bill to reform Federal election campaigns; to the Committee 
on Rules and Administration.

                          ____________________