[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 21003-21017]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CARPER (for himself and Mr. Biden):
  S. 2899. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct 
a special resources study to evaluate resources along the coastal 
region of the State of Delaware and to determine the suitability and 
feasibility of establishing 1 or more units of the National Park System 
in Delaware, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, a few minutes ago, I was recognized and I 
spoke about the first State. The first State is Delaware. Delaware 
became the first State December 7th, 1787, when we ratified the 
Constitution. For 1 week, Delaware was the entire United States of 
America. We opened things up for the rest of the country, and 
Pennsylvania came in, New Jersey, and others. For the most part, we are 
pleased the way it turned out.
  It is ironic that the State that helped start this country, the State 
whose history is part of the fabric of this country's history, has no 
national park to celebrate our place in the founding of this country 
and the growth of this country over the last 200-some years.
  A couple of years ago, my family and I were planning a vacation. We 
were trying to decide where to go. We were thinking about going to 
Alaska. We actually got on the National Park Service Web site to see 
about the national parks in Alaska. They have terrific national parks. 
We went up there and had a wonderful visit. Before we did that, we 
looked at that National Park Service Web site to see what other 
attractions there are in the other 49 States. There is a unit of the 
National Park Service in 49 States in this country, but we found 
nothing for Delaware.
  For years gone by and for the immediate future when families like 
ours are deciding where they are going to go on their summer vacation 
in 2005 or 2006, they will have the same choices as they had in 2004 
and the years before this, businesses, one of the most enduring 
businesses, large or small, in the United States.
  There are other attractions. The Underground Railroad literally runs 
the length and breadth of our State. Many slaves found their freedom 
crossing the Christina River into northern Delaware not far from where 
the first Swedes landed just down the river.
  A second hub would be located in the southern part of New Castle 
County along the Delaware River. Not far from where the hub would be is 
Fort Delaware. During the Confederate war, tens of thousands of 
Confederate soldiers were held prisoner at Fort Delaware, in the middle 
of the Delaware River. From that hub, Port Penn, along the Delaware 
River, will emanate to the spokes that lead to attractions, including 
Fort Delaware.
  A third hub is Kent County, DE. Kent County, DE, is home of the 
Golden Fleece Tavern. On December 7, 1787, a band of several dozen men 
decided, after studying and debating the Constitution that had been 
sent out from Philadelphia, from the Constitutional Convention, they 
decided to ratify at the Golden Fleece Tavern on that cold December 
morning.
  Not far from that is a place called John Dickinson Mansion. That 
mansion was home of a Delawarean who participated in the Constitutional 
Convention. At that Constitutional Convention, he worked with folks 
from Connecticut to develop the compromise that makes it clear that 
every State gets two Senators today and that all the States have 
representatives in the House of Representatives right down that hall in 
coordination with the size of the population of that State. That is 
just one of the many and those choices will not include a national park 
in Delaware or a unit of National Park in our State.
  Senator Biden, a couple of years ago, tried to address this problem. 
For a while, the idea of creating a national park gave some thought to 
creating a national park in the Great Cyprus Swamp in the southeast 
corner. Those familiar with Bethany, Rehoboth, and Lewes may or may not 
know there is a huge swamp where the last of the bald cyprus in North 
America are. We thought of designating the Great Cyprus Swamp as a 
national park. The idea ran into some disfavor in southern Delaware and 
was abandoned.
  I am delighted Senator Biden has joined in introducing today our 
legislation to call on the Department of the Interior to conduct a 
feasibility study to see if what we think is a great idea developed by 
our park committee in Delaware, led by Dr. Jim Soles over the last 
year, might find favor with the Department of the Interior, the 
Congress, and with the President.
  The committee has envisioned four wheels, four hubs, starting in the 
northern part of our State in Wilmington, DE, where the first Swedes 
and Finns came in 1638. They landed at Port Christina and established 
the colony of New Sweden. That hub will serve as a gateway through 
which visitors might come.
  Think of a hub as a bicycle wheel with spokes emanating from the 
hubs, and the spokes would lead to attractions throughout the northern 
part of our State. One is the Hagley Museum, where the first powder 
mills were built along the banks of the Brandywine River providing 
support for what became the DuPont Company that has endured for over 
200 attractions that would lead from the hub down to the spokes that 
people who come to the central part of our State might visit.
  Further south in our State is a place called Lewes. It was settled by 
the

[[Page 21004]]

Dutch back in the 1600s. It is a place that had been literally raided, 
attacked by Indians, wiped out, and came back to be a thriving, 
prosperous community. The history of early Lewes is captured in the 
Swaanendael Museum. Not far away is a beautiful State park, Cape 
Henlopen State Park, which a lot of people visit every year.
  We have wildlife refuges in the southern and northern part of the 
State. There are tens of millions of birds that stop and feed on the 
way either to the southern hemisphere in the winter or on the way back 
up North in the spring.
  Our State has a lot to offer. Our heritage is one that is rich and 
reflects the tapestry of our country we have had on the coastal regions 
of our State over the last 200 years. We do not want to keep it just to 
ourselves but share it with the rest of the country and the rest of the 
world.
  We are excited to work with the Department of the Interior, our 
colleagues, and the administration, present or future, to establish a 
coastal heritage park for the State of Delaware so a year or two from 
now, when people sit with their families, turn on their computers, and 
go to the National Park Service Web site to see what is available 
around the country to visit, they will find a lot of good things about 
the other 49 States, but they will find some very special things in 
Delaware, too.
  I thank Senators for the time to introduce this with my colleague, 
Senator Joe Biden.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Delaware 
National Coastal Special Resources Study Act. I am pleased to be joined 
in introducing this bill by Senator Biden. This bill authorizes the 
Secretary of the Interior to study the feasibility of establishing a 
National Park Service unit in Delaware.
  Delaware is first in so many ways. Yet we are the only State without 
a National Park. Last year, I wondered whether Delawareans agreed with 
me that we should have a unit of the National Park Service. Through 
surveys and town meetings, I polled Delawareans on this question in 
2003. The answer was a resounding and nearly unanimous ``yes.''
  However, folks were less unanimous on where the park should be 
located and which aspect of Delaware it should feature. So I formed a 
12-member committee representing communities throughout the State. They 
discussed many fine ideas, and narrowed them down to four proposals 
with a common thread. In one way or another, each proposal related to 
Delaware's coastal region.
  The committee recommended joining these proposals. The result would 
be a national park highlighting America's history, cultural heritage, 
commercial progress and natural beauty. The Delaware National Coastal 
Heritage Park will reveal that the various threads that together make 
up the fabric of Delaware are an ideal microcosm for the tapestry of 
America.
  To understand our proposal, first let me ask you to stop thinking 
about Yosemite or Yellowstone or Shenandoah. This proposal is not like 
those big, traditional national parks. Ours is a different, more 
innovative and creative way of thinking about a park. Delaware's 
coastal region is rich in historical sites, museums, parks, and 
wildlife areas. Together, these sites highlight the threads of history, 
heritage, commerce, and nature.
  A series of four gateway hubs, or interpretive centers, located along 
the coast will guide visitors to the many existing attractions in the 
coastal communities that underlie the park. Connecting these 
attractions through the National Park Service will allow us to tell our 
unique story to the Nation.
  And, as I'd like to demonstrate for you, our story is worth telling.
  The history of America, beginning well before the first European 
settlers, is seen in the Lenni Lenape and Nanticoke Native American 
tribes. They settled and prospered in the area in and around Delaware 
thousands of years before the first European settlement in the early 
1600s. Members of the modern Nanticoke Indian Association and the 
Lenape Tribe of Delaware trace their ancestry to the earliest 
inhabitants of Delaware's coastline. A visit to the Nanticoke Museum 
brings our early history to life.
  Delaware's shores were explored by the Swedes, Dutch and English. Our 
small State was the subject of competing claims for its territory from 
the beginning of European settlement. The earliest colonial settlement 
in Delaware, known as Swaanendael, was established in 1631 in what is 
present day Lewes. The settlement ended in tragedy when it was wiped 
out in a clash with the local Native American population. The 
Swaanendael Museum in Lewes illustrates Delaware's Dutch roots.
  The Swedes established the first permanent European settlement in the 
Delaware Valley. The Kalmar Nyckel, a replica of the ship that carried 
Swedes to our shores, is docked in Wilmington and currently hosts 
visitors from around the world.
  Founded in Wilmington in 1638, Fort Christina was the earliest 
lasting bastion in the region. However, as a main line for coastal 
defense in America, Delaware boasts forts throughout the State. Forts 
displaying various methods and philosophies of coastal defense can be 
found along the Delaware River from Fort Delaware and Fort Dupont in 
New Castle County to Fort Miles in Sussex County. Delaware was the site 
of military action in both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. 
And at the onset of World War II, the U.S. Army established a military 
base at Cape Henlopen. You can still see the bunkers and gun 
emplacements that were camouflaged among the dunes along with the 
concrete observation towers that were built to spot enemy ships.
  Delaware's pivotal role in America's fight for independence 
culminated in Caesar Rodney's legendary ride to Philadelphia to sign 
the Declaration of Independence. The Golden Fleece Tavern in Kent 
County was the meeting place where, on December 7, 1787, it was 
unanimously decided that Delaware would ratify the Constitution, giving 
us the distinction of being the First State.
  Transportation was dominated by water. New Castle thrived as a port 
town, second only to Philadelphia. Additional ports in Wilmington and 
Lewes provided harbor for ocean-going vessels in the export trade. A 
walk through old New Castle is like stepping back in time.
  Delaware historically holds the distinction of being one of America's 
most prosperous industrial, economic and commercial centers. Some of 
the Nation's leading ship and rail building establishments were located 
in the State, as were textile and papermaking companies. Frenchman 
Eleuthere lrenee duPont founded a gunpowder mill on the banks of the 
Brandywine River near Wilmington. The history of the DuPont Company is 
captured at the scenic Hagley Museum.
  Delaware's role in the Underground Railroad is too important not to 
tell. There are documented Underground Railroad sites all over the 
State. Underground Railroad historians believe that Harriet Tubman made 
numerous trips through Delaware after her own daring escape. Tubman-
Garrett Park in Wilmington overlooks the spot where escaping slaves 
swam across the Christina River as part of their journey. Wilmington 
and Camden in Kent County were considered safe stations on the way to 
freedom. Through the Delaware National Coastal Heritage Park, more 
Americans could come to understand the historic road to freedom 
traveled by thousands of enslaved Africans.
  Delaware is not only rich in history. It is also famed for its 
natural refuges and conservatories. William Penn proclaimed that Cape 
Henlopen and its natural resources were for the common usage, thus 
establishing some of the Nation's first ``public lands.'' Some of 
America's earliest beach resorts sprouted up along the Delaware Bay and 
coastline during the mid-to-late 19th century. They remain in use to 
this day. The Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge is an important link 
in the Atlantic Flyway, a trail of wildlife refuges used by migrating 
birds each year. This makes Bombay Hook a

[[Page 21005]]

must-see for bird watchers and nature lovers. The Little Creek Wildlife 
area is a 4,500 acre mecca for crabbers and fishermen.
  This is just a taste of the scenic beauty, ethnic heritage, and 
historical significance that greet visitors to Delaware's coastal 
shores. The national park selection committee realized that these 
events and places are threads of human and natural activity that create 
the very fabric of our society. And the committee realized that a park 
unit that helped local residents and visitors alike recognize and 
understand these threads would be a very appropriate and fitting 
addition to the National Park system. Our national park would 
demonstrate that coastal regions like those found in Delaware are a 
vital part of America's past, present, and future.
  But the committee also felt that the park itself should be very 
different from traditional parks. Instead of a large landmass, the park 
will be structured much like a series of four bicycle wheels, each with 
a hub and spokes. The hubs will be interpretive centers located 
strategically along the coastline. Local residents and tourists would 
learn about how our coastline has contributed to the development of our 
State and our Nation. These centers would provide information and 
guidance about the many, many existing historic sites, natural areas, 
recreational opportunities and other attractions that are part of our 
coastal region. The spokes will be the multitude of attractions and 
sites that demonstrate the threads of America's history and scenic 
beauty.
  The gateway hub will be located at the 7th Street Peninsula at the 
site of the original Fort Christina. There are various attractions 
within a short walking distance related to the coastal theme of the 
park. This site would also provide information, advice and directions 
about other sites in the Wilmington area. It might also include a 
visitor's center, park headquarters, perhaps a replica of the original 
Fort Christina.
  A second hub would be located along the Delaware River in southern 
New Castle County. It would provide information on attractions such as 
Fort Delaware on Pea Patch Island, Fort DuPont and the renowned 
historic district in the old city of New Castle as well other related 
attractions in New Castle County.
  The third hub would be located in Kent County, also along the coast 
of the Delaware River. It would provide information on the existing 
preserved natural areas and on the myriad other attractions in Kent 
County including the John Dickinson Mansion, Dover's historic Green and 
others.
  A Sussex County hub would be located in the Lewes area and would 
provide information on the numerous historic sites and natural areas 
that have made Sussex County's coastal region so pivotal to Delaware.
  Together, these four interpretive centers would direct visitors to 
the many existing attractions that would help our guests understand and 
appreciate the many threads of Delaware's Coastal Region--threads that 
help make up the fabric of America.
  Every year, millions of Americans plan their vacations around our 
Nation's national park system. They log onto the Park Service website 
and search for ideas for their family vacations. Right now, that search 
will turn up nothing for Delaware. With a national park unit here in 
Delaware, that will change.
  In the future, those families will be considering a trip to Delaware 
to visit our Coastal Heritage Park. Those trips will be a significant 
boost to our economy--they will create jobs and economic activity that 
can only be good for our State.
  Just as important--or maybe even more important--these additional 
visitors will bring more attention to our existing historic sites and 
other attractions. That additional attention will help guarantee they 
are preserved for future generations.
  By encouraging more Delawareans themselves to visit these wonderful 
places, a National Park unit will help enrich our own understanding of 
our own history.
  I have described to you today a vision resulting from the hard work 
of many dedicated Delawareans. Today, I take the next step in making 
their vision a reality.
  The bill I've introduced today--the Delaware National Coastal Special 
Resources Study Act--authorizes the National Park Service to conduct a 
``Special Resource Study'' to make recommendations as to the 
feasibility of this proposal. The study itself would take from 1 to 2 
years to complete and would include estimated costs of implementing the 
proposal.
  I believe this is an exciting proposal and one that, when 
incorporated into the National Park System, will become an important 
element in preserving the wonderful human and natural history presented 
by our coastal region.
  l 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. 2899

       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 ``Delaware National Coastal 
     Special Resources Study Act''.

     SEC. 2. STUDY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior (referred to 
     in this Act as the ``Secretary'') shall conduct a special 
     resources study of the national significance, feasibility of 
     long-term preservation, and public use of sites in the 
     coastal region of the State of Delaware.
       (b) Inclusion of Sites in the National Park System.--The 
     study under subsection (a) shall include an analysis and any 
     recommendations of the Secretary concerning the suitability 
     and feasibility of--
       (1) designating 1 or more of the sites along the Delaware 
     coast as units of the National Park System that relate to the 
     themes described in section 3; or
       (2) establishing a national heritage area that incorporates 
     the sites along the Delaware coast that relate to the themes 
     described in section 3.
       (c) Study Guidelines.--In conducting the study authorized 
     under subsection (a), the Secretary shall use the criteria 
     for the study of areas for potential inclusion in the 
     National Park System contained in section 8 of Public Law 91-
     383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-5).
       (d) Consultation.--In preparing and conducting the study 
     under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with--
       (1) the State of Delaware;
       (2) the coastal region communities; and
       (3) the general public.

     SEC. 3. THEMES.

       The study authorized under section 2 shall evaluate sites 
     along the coastal region of the State of Delaware that relate 
     to--
       (1) the history of indigenous peoples, which would explore 
     history of Native American tribes of Delaware, such as the 
     Nanticoke and Lenni Lenape;
       (2) the colonization and establishment of the frontier, 
     which would chronicle the first European settlers in the 
     Delaware Valley who built fortifications for the protection 
     of settlers;
       (3) the founding of a nation, which would document the 
     contributions of Delaware to the development of our 
     constitutional republic;
       (4) industrial development, which would investigate the 
     exploitation of water power in Delaware with the mill 
     development on the Brandywine River;
       (5) transportation, which would explore how water served as 
     the main transportation link, connecting Colonial Delaware 
     with England, Europe, and other colonies;
       (6) coastal defense, which would document the collection of 
     fortifications spaced along the river and bay from Fort 
     Delaware on Pea Patch Island to Fort Miles near Lewes;
       (7) the last stop to freedom, which would detail the role 
     Delaware has played in the history of the Underground 
     Railroad network; and
       (8) the coastal environment, which would examine natural 
     resources of Delaware that provide resource-based 
     recreational opportunities such as crabbing, fishing, 
     swimming, and boating.

     SEC. 4. REPORT.

       Not later than 1 year after funds are made available to 
     carry out this Act under section 5, the Secretary shall 
     submit to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of 
     the Senate and the Committee on Resources of the House of 
     Representatives a report containing the findings, 
     conclusions, and recommendations of the study conducted under 
     section 2.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.


[[Page 21006]]

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I rise in support of the Delaware 
National Coastal Special Resources Study Act and join my colleague, 
Senator Carper, in asking this body to support our efforts to construct 
the Delaware National Coastal Heritage Park. Delaware is the only State 
not to have a national park and we feel strongly that the time has 
come. Today, through this legislation, we are asking the Secretary of 
the Interior to study the feasibility of establishing a National Park 
Service unit in the State of Delaware.
  As I stand before you, I know what most of you are thinking. Do we 
have an area worthy of such designation? Do we have picturesque 
mountains like the Grand Tetons or the Great Smokey Mountains? Are 
people drawn to our coasts to find the spirituality of JoshuaTree? Do 
we possess landscape on par with the beauty and serenity of Acadia 
National Park? Well, in a word, yes. A little of all of the 
magnificence found in some of our Nation's most famous parks can be 
found in our State of Delaware and that is why the proposal presented 
by Senator Carper is so unique and worthy of the next step.
  I have to commend my colleague. Senator Carper brought together a 
committee of dedicated Delawareans to analyze the validity of a 
national park in the State of Delaware. After much deliberation, the 
committee suggested a series of four interpretive centers, scattered 
throughout the state, to highlight the many treasures of our state. 
While there are numerous sites identified in the proposal, I would just 
like to take a moment to speak to several that have been especially 
close to me in my years in the Senate.
  Pea Patch Island is a 228-acre park located off the coast of Delaware 
City, Delaware that houses Fort Delaware, one of our country's oldest 
Civil War-era fortifications and Delaware's oldest State Park. The 
island, with its fort, seawall and other archeological remains, is 
listed on the National Registry of Historic Places. The island also 
houses a State nature preserve, providing critical habitat to thousands 
of wading birds. It is also the largest heronry north of Florida.
  Delaware also played a special role in the Underground Railroad and 
the proposal will highlight the 18 sites in Delaware including a 
hideout at the Governor's mansion, the court house where abolitionist 
Thomas Garrett was tried, the Mother African Church in Wilmington where 
an African American Festival founded in 1814 was used as a cover to 
help slaves escape is still celebrated, and numerous other sites 
utilized by the principal Underground Railroad conductor, Harriet 
Tubman.
  Finally, I would like to mention our coastline, our beaches. Now into 
October, we have said goodbye to another fantastic beach season with 
millions of people visiting our shores. The historic sites and wildlife 
refuges that dot our coastline are unique to the area and to the 
Nation.
  These links to Delaware's past are important to our Nation's future 
and I am proud to join my colleague in supporting this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Campbell, and Mr. 
        Inouye):
  S. 2900. A bill to authorize the President to posthumously award a 
gold medal on behalf of Congress to Elizabeth Wanamaker Peratrovich and 
Roy Peratrovich in recognition of their outstanding and enduring 
contributions to civil rights and dignity of the Native peoples of 
Alaska and the Nation; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I was proud to join with my colleagues 
and tens of thousands of America's first peoples, including a 
substantial contingent of Alaska Natives, in participating in the 
opening ceremonies for the National Museum of the American Indian. I 
don't have to tell you what a special week this was for the first 
peoples of America and particularly for my Alaska Native people. We 
take pride in our new National Museum of the American Indian and all 
that it represents. First and foremost, it represents a commitment on 
the part of the American people that the substantial contributions of 
American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians be preserved in 
perpetuity in a prominent location adjacent to the U.S. Capitol. It 
represents a commitment that the Native experience will not be lost to 
history.
  Today, I want to share with the Senate a piece of Native history that 
is very significant to the Native people of Alaska and indeed, the 
first peoples of our entire Nation. It is the story of a Tlingit 
couple, Roy and Elizabeth Peratrovich. Roy and Elizabeth are to the 
Native peoples of Alaska what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa 
Parks are to African Americans. Everybody knows about Dr. Martin Luther 
King, Jr. and Rosa Parks, but hardly anyone outside the State of Alaska 
knows about Roy and Elizabeth Peratrovich. That is going to change 
today.
  Elizabeth was born in 1911, about 17 years before Dr. King. She was 
born in Petersburg, AK. After college she married Roy Peratrovich, a 
Tlingit from Klawock, AK; and the couple had three children. Roy and 
Elizabeth moved to Juneau. They were excited about buying a new home. 
But they could not buy the house that they wanted because they were 
Native. They could not enter the stores or restaurants they wanted. 
Outside some of these stores and restaurants there were signs that read 
``No Natives Allowed.'' History has also recorded a sign that read ``No 
Dogs or Indians Allowed.''
  On December 30, 1941, following the invasion of Pearl Harbor, 
Elizabeth and Roy wrote to Alaska's Territorial Governor:

       In the present emergency our Native boys are being called 
     upon to defend our beloved country. There are no distinctions 
     being made there. Yet when we patronized good business 
     establishments we are told in most cases that Natives are not 
     allowed.
       The proprietor of one business, an inn, does not seem to 
     realize that our Native boys are just as willing to lay down 
     their lives to protect the freedom he enjoys. Instead he 
     shows his appreciation by having a `No Natives Allowed' sign 
     on his door.

  In that letter Elizabeth and Roy noted:

       We were shocked when the Jews were discriminated against in 
     Germany. Stories were told of public places having signs, 
     ``No Jews Allowed.'' All freedom loving people were horrified 
     at what was being practiced in Germany, yet it is being 
     practiced in our own country.

  In 1943, the Alaska Legislature, at the behest of Roy and Elizabeth 
considered an anti-discrimination law. It was defeated. But Roy and 
Elizabeth were not defeated. Two years later, in 1945, the anti-
discrimination measure was back before the Alaska Legislature. It 
passed the lower house, but met with stiff opposition in the Alaska 
Senate.
  One by one Senators took to the floor to argue against the mixing of 
the races. A church leader testified that it would take thirty to one 
hundred years before Alaska Natives would reach the equality of the 
white man.
  Elizabeth Peratrovich rose from the gallery and said she would like 
to be heard. She was recognized, as was the custom of the day. In a 
quiet, dignified and steady voice she said, ``I would not have expected 
that I, who am barely out of savagery, would have to remind gentleman 
with five thousand years of recorded history behind them of our Bill of 
Rights.'' She was asked by a Senator if she thought the proposed bill 
would eliminate discrimination, Elizabeth Peratrovich queried in 
rebuttal, ``Do your laws against larceny and even murder prevent these 
crimes? No law will eliminate crimes but at least you legislators can 
assert to the world that you recognize the evil of the present 
situation and speak your intent to help us overcome discrimination.''
  When she finished, there was a wild burst of applause from the 
gallery and the Senate floor alike. The territorial Senate passed the 
bill by a vote of eleven to five. On February 16, 1945, Alaska had an 
anti-discrimination law that provided all citizens of the territory of 
Alaska are entitled to full and equal enjoyment of public 
accommodations. Following passage of the anti-discrimination law, Roy 
and Elizabeth could be seen dancing at the Baranof Hotel, one of 
Juneau's finest. They danced among people they didn't know. They danced 
in a place where the day before they were not welcome.

[[Page 21007]]

  There is an important lesson to be learned from the battles of 
Elizabeth and Roy Peratrovich. Even in defeat, they knew that change 
would come from their participation in our political system. They were 
not discouraged by their defeat in 1943. They came back fighting and 
enjoyed the fruits of their victory two years later.
  Nineteen years before the United States Congress prohibited 
discrimination in public accommodations in the Civil Rights Act of 
1964; eighteen years before Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of his 
dream on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial--Alaska had a civil rights 
law. Elizabeth would not live to see the United States adopt the same 
law she brought to Alaska in 1945. She passed away in 1958 at the age 
of 47.
  The State of Alaska has acknowledged Elizabeth Peratrovich's 
contribution to history by designating February 16 of each year as 
Elizabeth Peratrovich Day. It has also designated one of the public 
galleries in the Alaska House of Representatives as the Elizabeth 
Peratrovich Gallery.
  But what about Roy? Why has his role not been recognized? Roy 
Peratrovich passed away in 1989 at age 81. He died 9 days before the 
first Elizabeth Peratrovich Day was observed in the State of Alaska. 
Perhaps it was because Roy was still alive at the time this honor was 
bestowed; it is Elizabeth that has gotten all the credit for passage of 
the anti-discrimination law.
  Members of the Peratrovich family tell me that this is not entirely 
unjustified because without Elizabeth's stirring speech the anti-
discrimination law would not have passed. But they also point out, as 
does the historical record, that Elizabeth and Roy were a focused and 
effective team. History should recognize that the anti-discrimination 
law was enacted due to the joint efforts of Roy and Elizabeth 
Peratrovich. I rise today to do my part toward that end.
  Joined by my colleague, the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska, 
Mr. Stevens, the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Committee on 
Indian Affairs, Mr. Campbell and the distinguished Vice Chairman of 
that committee, Mr. Inouye, I offer legislation to recognize the 
contributions of Roy and Elizabeth Peratrovich with a Congressional 
Gold Medal. Congressional Gold Medals have been awarded to a number of 
African- Americans who have made contributions to the cause of civil 
rights, among them, Rosa Parks, Roy Wilkins, Dorothy Height, the nine 
brave individuals who desegregated the schools of Little Rock, Arkansas 
and others involved in the effort to desegregate public education.
  As our Nation focuses on the many contributions of our first people 
and the challenges they have faced throughout our Nation's history with 
the opening of the National Museum of the American Indian, it is high 
time that we also acknowledge the work of American Indians, Alaska 
Natives and Native Hawaiians in the struggle for civil rights and 
social justice. Honoring Elizabeth and Roy Peratrovich's substantial 
contribution with a Congressional Gold Medal is a fine start.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2900

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

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Elizabeth Wanamaker, a Tlingit Indian, was born on July 
     4, 1911, in Petersburg, Alaska.
       (2) Elizabeth married Roy Peratrovich, a Tlingit Indian 
     from Klawock, Alaska, on December 15, 1931.
       (3) In 1941, the couple moved to Juneau, Alaska.
       (4) Roy and Elizabeth Peratrovich discovered that they 
     could not purchase a home in the section of Juneau in which 
     they desired to live due to discrimination against Alaska 
     Natives.
       (5) In the early 1940s, there were reports that some 
     businesses in Southeast Alaska posted signs reading ``No 
     Natives Allowed''.
       (6) Roy, as Grand President of the Alaska Native 
     Brotherhood and Elizabeth, as Grand President of the Alaska 
     Native Sisterhood, petitioned the Territorial Governor and 
     the Territorial Legislature to enact a law prohibiting 
     discrimination against Alaska Natives in public 
     accommodations.
       (7) Rebuffed by the Territorial Legislature in 1943, they 
     again sought passage of an antidiscrimination law in 1945.
       (8) On February 8, 1945, as the Alaska Territorial Senate 
     debated the anti-discrimination law, Elizabeth, who was 
     sitting in the visitor's gallery of the Senate, was 
     recognized to present her views on the measure.
       (9) The eloquent and dignified testimony given by Elizabeth 
     that day is widely credited for passage of the 
     antidiscrimination law.
       (10) On February 16, 1945, Territorial Governor Ernest 
     Gruening signed into law an act prohibiting discrimination 
     against all citizens within the jurisdiction of the Territory 
     of Alaska in access to public accommodations and imposing a 
     penalty on any person who shall display any printed or 
     written sign indicating discrimination on racial grounds of 
     such full and equal enjoyment.
       (11) Nineteen years before Congress enacted the Civil 
     Rights Act of 1964, and 18 years before the Reverend Dr. 
     Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his ``I have a Dream'' 
     speech, one of America's first antidiscrimination laws was 
     enacted in the Territory of Alaska, thanks to the efforts of 
     Elizabeth and Roy Peratrovich.
       (12) Since 1989, the State of Alaska has observed Elizabeth 
     Peratrovich Day on February 16 of each year and a visitor's 
     gallery of the Alaska House of Representatives in the Alaska 
     State Capitol has been named for Elizabeth Peratrovich.

     SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL.

       (a) Presentation Authorized.--The President is authorized, 
     on behalf of the Congress, to posthumously award a gold medal 
     of appropriate design to Elizabeth Wanamaker Peratrovich and 
     Roy Peratrovich, in recognition of their outstanding and 
     enduring contributions to the civil rights and dignity of the 
     Native peoples of Alaska and the Nation.
       (b) Design and Striking.--For the purpose of the 
     presentation referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary of 
     the Treasury (in this Act referred to as the ``Secretary'') 
     shall strike a gold medal with suitable emblems, devices, and 
     inscriptions, to be determined by the Secretary.

     SEC. 3. DUPLICATE MEDALS.

       The Secretary may strike and sell duplicates in bronze of 
     the gold medal struck pursuant to section 2 under such 
     regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, and at a price 
     sufficient to cover the cost thereof, including labor, 
     materials, dies, use of machinery, and overhead expenses, and 
     the cost of the gold medal.

     SEC. 4. NATIONAL MEDALS.

       The medals struck under this Act are national medals for 
     purposes of chapter 51 of title 31, United States Code.

     SEC. 5. FUNDING.

       (a) Authority To Use Fund Amounts.--There is authorized to 
     be charged against the United States Mint Public Enterprise 
     Fund such sum as may be appropriated to pay for the cost of 
     the medals authorized by this Act.
       (b) Proceeds of Sale.--Amounts received from the sale of 
     duplicate bronze medals under section 3 shall be deposited in 
     the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself and Mr. Breaux):
  S. 2901. A bill for the relief of Rona Ramon, Asaf Ramon, Tal Ramon, 
Yiftach Ramon, and Noah Ramon; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. 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. 2901

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

     SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR RONA RAMON, ASAF 
                   RAMON, TAL RAMON, YIFTACH RAMON, AND NOAH 
                   RAMON.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of 
     section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1151), Rona Ramon, Asaf Ramon, Tal Ramon, Yiftach Ramon, and 
     Noah Ramon shall each be eligible for issuance of an 
     immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an 
     alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon filing 
     an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under 
     section 204 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment of 
     status to lawful permanent resident.
       (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Rona Ramon, Asaf Ramon, Tal 
     Ramon, Yiftach Ramon, or Noah Ramon enters the United States 
     before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), he or 
     she shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully 
     and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment 
     of status under section 245 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--
     Subsections (a) and (b) shall

[[Page 21008]]

     apply only if the application for issuance of an immigrant 
     visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
     with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting 
     of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to Rona Ramon, 
     Asaf Ramon, Tal Ramon, Yiftach Ramon, and Noah Ramon, the 
     Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to 
     reduce by 5, during the current or next following fiscal 
     year, the total number of immigrant visas that are made 
     available to natives of the country of the aliens' birth 
     under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, if applicable, the total number of 
     immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the 
     country of the aliens' birth under section 202(e) of such Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)).
       (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for 
     Certain Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and 
     sisters of Rona Ramon, Asaf Ramon, Tal Ramon, Yiftach Ramon, 
     and Noah Ramon shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be 
     accorded any right, privilege, or status under the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 2902. A bill to ensure an abundant and affordable supply of highly 
nutritious fruits, vegetables, and other specialty crops for American 
consumers and international markets by enhancing the competitiveness of 
United States-grown specialty crops; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Specialty 
Crop Competitiveness Act of 2004.'' This bipartisan legislation co-
sponsored by the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, 
increases the focus on the contribution that specialty crops add to the 
United States agricultural economy. This bill specifically provides the 
proper and necessary attention to many challenges faced throughout each 
segment of the industry.
  Most do not realize the significance of specialty crops and their 
value to the U.S. economy and the health of U.S. citizens. According to 
the United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, 
fruits and vegetables alone added $29.9 billion to the U.S. economy in 
2002. This figure does not even include the contribution of nursery and 
other ornamental plant production.
  The specialty crop industry also accounts for more than $53 billion 
in cash receipts for U.S. producers, which is close to fifty-four 
percent of the total cash receipts for all crops. A surprising fact to 
some is that my State of Idaho is the Nation's fourth largest producer 
of specialty crops. Idaho proudly boasts production of cherries, table 
grapes, apples, onions, carrots, several varieties of seed crops and of 
course one of our most notable specialty crops, potatoes.
  Maintaining a viable and sustainable specialty crop industry also 
benefits the health of America's citizens. Obesity continues to plague 
millions of people today and is a very serious and deepening threat not 
only to personal health and well-being, but to the resources of the 
economy as well. This issue is now receiving the necessary attention at 
the highest levels, and specialty crops will continue to play a 
prominent role in reversing the obesity trend.
  The ``Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act'' will also provide a 
stronger position for the U.S. industry in the global market arena. 
This legislation promotes initiatives that will combat diseases both 
native and foreign that continue to be used as non-tariff barriers to 
U.S. exports by foreign governments. Additionally, provisions in this 
bill seek improvements to Federal regulations and resources that impede 
timely consideration of industry sanitary and phytosanitary petitions. 
This bill does not provide direct subsidies to producers like other 
programs. This legislation takes a major step forward to highlight the 
significance of this industry to the agriculture economy, the benefits 
to the health of U.S. citizens, and the need for a stable, affordable, 
diverse, and secure supply of food.
  Although we near the end of the 108th Congress. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues and the Administration now to consider this 
comprehensive and necessary legislation.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague Senator 
Craig in introducing The Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act of 2004. 
This legislation would help increase the production and consumption of 
fruits and vegetables in the United States. I would like to thank my 
colleague Senator Craig for his hard work and leadership on this 
legislation, and his outstanding commitment to the specialty crop 
community.
  Fruits and vegetables are vital to good health, and far too many 
Americans do not consume enough of the fresh fruits and vegetables that 
they desperately need. Increased consumption of fresh produce will 
provide tremendous health and economic benefits to consumers and 
growers.
  For far too long, specialty crops have been ignored by the United 
States Department of Agriculture. The majority of crops grown in 
America, from apples, pears, and cherries, to tomatoes, carrots, 
cucumbers, and nursery plants do not receive the same subsidies or USDA 
consideration as program crops. All of our farmers work hard and take a 
great gamble every year to produce and receive a return on their crops. 
They gamble against heat, drought, frost, storms, and more recently a 
flood of foreign produce to our markets.
  I represent a diverse agricultural State, and I want American farmers 
to understand that this legislation is in no way designed to take away 
funding from program crops, but rather to bring specialty crops up to 
the status of program crops. This legislation would address a number of 
issues critical to our nation's specialty crop growers. First, it would 
create a specialty crop block grant to state agriculture departments to 
support production-related research, commodity production, nutrition, 
food safety and inspection and other competitiveness enhancing 
programs.
  The legislation would also improve our growers' access to foreign 
markets. Thus far, many of our trade agreements have failed to open new 
markets to our growers, but rather have created new headaches. Our 
markets have faced problems from new invasive species, currency 
manipulation, and a flood of products, such as apple juice concentrate, 
which have invaded hurt our Nation's growers. Therefore, this 
legislation would require the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service 
(APHIS) to create a division that would handle industry petitions on 
sanitary and phytosanitary barriers to specialty crop exports. It would 
increase the technical assistance funding for specialty crop and study 
the effects of recent trade agreements and propose a strategy for 
specialty crop producers to more effectively benefit from international 
trade opportunities. In order to benefit our farmers, we must ensure 
that free trade is fair trade.
  Also important to my home State of Michigan is the Tree Assistance 
Program (TAP), which is designed to provide financial relief to growers 
who lose trees and vines due to natural causes. This past summer in 
Michigan, a number of our fruit growers suffered damage from hail 
storms on the western side of our State. TAP funds will be critical to 
restoring trees and vines damaged in the storms. However, it take a 
number of years to obtain a return on new fruit trees. Because of the 
high per acre cost of establishing perennial crops, our legislation 
would increase the limitation on assistance under the TAP from $75,000 
to $150,000 for each eligible farm.
  In addition, this legislation would correct a two year old 
misinterpretation by the USDA. The 2002 Farm Bill states that at least 
$200 million must be spent annually on the purchase of specialty crops. 
The Farm Bill Conference Report emphasizes that the allocated $200 
million is to be used for additional purchases, over and above the 
purchases made under current law. For example in 2001, the USDA 
purchased $243 million in fresh fruits and vegetables; therefore the 
new total under the Farm Bill should be $443 million in purchases.
  Unfortunately, the USDA is not complying with this provision. Instead 
of

[[Page 21009]]

adding the $200 million on top of baseline spending for school lunch 
and senior programs, USDA has eliminated the baseline spending so there 
is no guarantee of any new spending on fruits and vegetables for our 
children. In fact, in 2002 USDA did not even meet the minimum purchase 
requirement; only $181 million in fresh fruits and vegetables were 
purchased. The Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act will correct this 
discrepancy and provide our Nation's children with much needed fruits 
and vegetables.
  Supporting our Nation's specialty crop growers and providing 
nutritious fruits and vegetables to our nation's consumers is vital to 
ensuring our own health and the health of our economy. I am proud to 
introduce this legislation and I hope that my colleagues will join me 
in its support.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LUGAR:
  S. 2903. A bill to provide immunity for nonprofit athletic 
organizations in lawsuits arising from claims of ordinary negligence 
relating to passage or adoption of rules for athletic competitions and 
practices; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today in order to express my support 
for the Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act of 2004.
  Our country has invested a tremendous number of resources in 
providing our children with the ability to play sports. In every town 
in America, you will find boys and girls playing America's most popular 
sports: baseball, soccer, football and, of course, basketball. A recent 
study by the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association showed that in 
2000 at least 36 million American children played on at least one team 
sport. Of those 36 million, 26 million children between the ages of 6-
17, played on an organized team in an organized league. A study by 
Statistical Research, Inc. for the Amateur Athletic Foundation and ESPN 
found that 94 percent of American children play some sport during the 
year.
  The ability for children to participate in sporting events provides 
our society many benefits that government cannot provide. Studies have 
shown that these benefits include betterment to a child's health, 
academic performance, social development and safety.
  It is no wonder that the most obvious benefit of organized sports is 
physical fitness. The National Institute of Health Care Maintenance has 
identified physical activity such as sports as a key factor in the 
maintenance of a healthy body. Lack of physical activity, along with 
unhealthy eating habits, has been identified as the leading cause of 
obesity in children. The center notes: ``Physical activity provides 
numerous mental and physical benefits to health, including reduction in 
the risk of premature mortality, cardiovascular diseases, hypertension, 
diabetes, depression, and cancers.'' The Washington Times reported on 
May 14th of this year that a Cooper Institute for Aerobics Research 
study indicated, ``Low fitness outranks fatness as a risk factor for 
mortality.'' By encouraging our children to participate in organized 
sports, we increase physical fitness and fight obesity.
  A second benefit in the participation of organized sports is an 
increase in academic performance. The National Institute of Health Care 
Maintenance has highlighted ``a recent largescale analysis reported by 
the California Department of Education [has shown] that the level of 
physical fitness attained by students was directly related to their 
performance on standardized achievement measures.'' When we encourage 
our children to participate in organized sports, we increase the 
ability for them to achieve academically.
  A third benefit for young people who participate in organized sports 
is that they learn positive social development. Organized sports teach 
values of teamwork, fair play, and friendly competition. Success in 
organized sports is also a vital self-esteem builder in many children.
  These three benefits have been widely discussed on the floor of the 
Senate and we have acted to implement several programs designed to 
reduce obesity and increase fitness, educational standards and the 
social well-being of our children.
  The fourth benefit to participation in organized youth sports, 
providing a safe place to play, is a topic that has not received as 
much attention as the first three. Nonetheless, it is no less 
important. Fewer kids are simply going outside to play, due to the 
attraction of TV, video games, and the Internet, combined with parents' 
safety concerns about letting children run around outside unsupervised. 
As a result, organized sports teams are an increasingly important 
source of safe physical activity in children. The American Academy of 
Pediatrics has stated, ``In contrast to unstructured or free play, 
participation in organized sports provides a greater opportunity to 
develop rules specifically designed for health and safety.''
  One primary reason why organized sports provide such an opportunity 
for safe play is that non-profit, volunteer organizations establish 
rules to provide a safe place to play. These organizations are made up 
of professional people who are in the business of providing children a 
fun and safe avenue for athletic exercise. Organizations like the Boys 
and Girls Club, the National Council of Youth Sports, the National 
Federation of State High School Associations and others exist largely 
to establish rules in order to minimize the risk of injury our children 
face while participating in sports. No matter how well these 
organizations perform their work, however, boys and girls will be 
injured.
  Over the last several years, more and more of these rule making 
bodies have become targets for lawsuits seeking to prove that the rule 
maker was negligent in making the rules of play. These lawsuits claim 
that had a different rule been in place, the injury would not have 
happened. Indeed, these suits place rule makers into a Catch-22. A 
child can be injured in almost any situation no matter how a rule is 
written. The result has been to have more and more lawsuits.
  As a consequence, the insurance premiums of these organizations have 
risen dramatically over the past several years. In his testimony before 
the House Judiciary Committee this past July, Robert Kanaby the 
Executive Director of the National Federation of State High School 
Associations testified that: ``Over the last three years, the annual 
liability insurance premiums for the National High School Federation 
have increased three-fold to about $1,000,000. We have been advised by 
experts that given our claims experience and the reluctance of insurers 
to offer such coverage to an organization `serving 7,000,000 potential 
claimants,' the premiums will likely increase significantly in years to 
come. Since we operate on a total budget of about $9,000,000, such an 
increase would be, to put it mildly, problematical.'' The costs have 
increased to the point where it is possible that these organizations 
will cease from providing age appropriate rules and the safety of youth 
sports will decline.
  Because of this problem, I am introducing today the Nonprofit 
Athletic Organization Protection Act of 2004. This legislation will 
eliminate lawsuits based on claims that a non-profit rulemaking body is 
liable for the physical injury when the rule was made by a properly 
licensed rulemaking body that has acted within the scope of its 
authority. Lawsuits may be maintained if the rule maker was grossly 
negligent or engaged in criminal or reckless misconduct. This 
reasonable legislation will help sports rule makers to do their job. If 
we do not pass this legislation, it is likely that rule makers will 
eventually close their doors since they will be unable to afford the 
insurance needed to provide a safe sporting environment.
  No one who has participated in the debate surrounding this problem 
has disagreed that the current lawsuit culture needs reform. Instead, 
two concerns have arisen regarding the scope of the legislative remedy: 
first, that the remedy was overly broad preventing law suits against 
rule makers on other issues; second, that this legislation would 
prevent lawsuits against rule makers who are negligent.

[[Page 21010]]

  To remedy these concerns, the legislation introduced today contains a 
provision that explicitly says that lawsuits involving ``antitrust, 
labor, environmental, defamation, tortuous interference of contract law 
or civil rights law, or any other federal, state, or local law 
providing protection from discrimination'' are not barred by this bill.
  The additional provision would also provide no legal immunity from 
lawsuit if the rule maker has authority to determine coach eligibility. 
Additionally, the PROTECT Act passed last year, we authorized a pilot 
program that enabled the National Center for Missing and Exploited 
Children to do background checks on coaches who participate in certain 
programs. This program has been successful, weeding out many who would 
potentially harm our children. So much so that last Friday, by 
unanimous consent, Senators Hatch and Biden shepherded through an 
extension of this program for an additional 18 months with an aim of 
eventually making this program permanent.
  As my colleagues know, I am a runner. I enjoy the activity and the 
positive effect that running and athletics have played in my life. I 
would hope that my nine grandchildren will be able to have an 
opportunity to participate in organized sports and that lawsuits 
against rule makers for allegedly faulty rules will not prevent these 
organizations from functioning properly. I encourage my colleagues to 
support passage of this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 2904. A bill to authorize the exchange of certain land in the 
State of Colorado; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am today introducing legislation to 
complete a small land exchange between the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau 
of Land Management and Pitkin County at the Ashcroft Townsite near 
Aspen, CO. This exchange is long overdue, as it has been over a decade 
since work on this proposal began.
  I am very pleased to assist this particular land exchange because it 
will result in the Forest Service acquiring a piece of land known as 
the ``Ryan Property'', which is one of the most scenic properties in 
the entire Aspen area . . . and that's saying a lot!
  I am personally familiar with the Ryan Property and its truly 
spectacular scenery, and would like to note that the Ryan Property was 
the training ground for the U.S. Army's famous 10th Mountain Division 
during World War II before the more well-known Camp Hale was built near 
Leadville.
  The Ryan Property also has a series of extremely popular cross 
country skiing trails, which connect the trails on adjacent Forest 
Service lands, and lie adjacent to the heavily-used Cathedral Lake 
Trail and trailhead. This is a truly magnificent piece of land that my 
bill will convey into permanent public ownership.
  The acquisition of these lands by the Forest Service will complete 
the Ashcroft Preservation Project, initiated by the Forest Service in 
1980 to protect the scenic and historic beauty of the Ashcroft area.
  As I indicated earlier, completion of this land exchange has not been 
without difficulty. Indeed, the exchange was first suggested by the 
Forest Service in 1992. In the year 2000, Pitkin County and the Aspen 
Valley Land Trust purchased the property, at the request of the Forest 
Service, to keep it from development until a land exchange could be 
completed.
  Unfortunately, since that time, procedural difficulties, personnel 
changes, and changing priorities have hindered completion of the 
exchange. As well, various alternative exchange land packages have been 
discussed and agreed upon by the parties involved over the years.
  Finally, this year, an agreement was reached between the Forest 
Service, BLM, and Pitkin County to go forward with a three-party 
exchange, and it is my intention to help them finish it. While this 
exchange will follow according to existing regulations, with my bill 
Congress will direct that it occur, so that the types of problems which 
have prevented its completion thus far will not delay it further.
  Additionally, with the special provisions written into this 
legislation, upon completion of the exchange the County and Land Trust 
will actually be donating land value to the United States, which is a 
great benefit for the public.
  Accordingly, I am introducing my legislation today in the hopes that 
it still might be able to see some action this fall. I note that the 
exchange has the support of a broad array of governmental and non-
profit entities including Pitkin County, the City of Aspen, the Aspen 
Valley Land Trust, the Aspen Skiing Company, the Roaring Fork 
Conservancy, Ashcroft Ski Touring, Wilderness Workshop, Conservation 
Fund, and many others.
  It is my feeling that this is exactly the type of consensus land 
conservation effort we should all be supporting, and hope for swift and 
successful passage of this legislation.
  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. 2904

       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 ``Pitkin County Land Exchange 
     Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to authorize, direct, expedite, 
     and facilitate the exchange of land between the United 
     States, Pitkin County, Colorado, and the Aspen Valley Land 
     Trust.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Aspen valley land trust.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``Aspen Valley Land Trust'' means 
     the Aspen Valley Land Trust, a nonprofit organization as 
     described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986.
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``Aspen Valley Land Trust'' 
     includes any successor, heir, or assign of the Aspen Valley 
     Land Trust.
       (2) County.--The term ``County'' means Pitkin County, a 
     political subdivision of the State.
       (3) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means--
       (A) the approximately 5.5 acres of National Forest System 
     land located in the County, as generally depicted on the map 
     entitled ``Ryan Land Exchange-Wildwood Parcel Conveyance to 
     Pitkin County'' and dated August 2004;
       (B) the 12 parcels of National Forest System land located 
     in the County totaling approximately 5.92 acres, as generally 
     depicted on the map entitled ``Ryan Land Exchange-Smuggler 
     Mountain Patent Remnants-Conveyance to Pitkin County'' and 
     dated August 2004; and
       (C) the approximately 40 acres of Bureau of Land management 
     land located in the County, as generally depicted on the map 
     entitled ``Ryan Land Exchange-Crystal River Parcel Conveyance 
     to Pitkin County'' and dated August 2004.
       (4) Non-Federal land.--The term ``non-Federal land'' 
     means--
       (A) the approximately 35 acres of non-Federal land in the 
     County, as generally depicted on the map entitled ``Ryan Land 
     Exchange-Ryan Property Conveyance to Forest Service'' and 
     dated August 2004; and
       (B) the approximately 18.2 acres of non-Federal land 
     located on Smuggler Mountain in the County, as generally 
     depicted on the map entitled ``Ryan Land Exchange-Smuggler 
     Mountain-Grand Turk and Pontiac Claims Conveyance to Forest 
     Service''.
       (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.
       (6) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Colorado.

     SEC. 4. LAND EXCHANGE.

       (a) In General.--If the County offers to convey to the 
     United States title to the non-Federal land that is 
     acceptable to the Secretary, the Secretary and the Secretary 
     of the Interior shall--
       (1) accept the offer; and
       (2) on receipt of acceptable title to the non-Federal land, 
     simultaneously convey to the County, or at the request of the 
     County, to the Aspen Valley Land Trust, all right, title, and 
     interest of the United States in and to the Federal land, 
     subject to all valid existing rights and encumbrances.
       (b) Timing.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), it is 
     the intent of Congress that the land exchange directed by 
     this Act shall be completed not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Exception.--The Secretary, the Secretary of the 
     Interior, and the County may agree to extend the deadline 
     specified in paragraph (1).

[[Page 21011]]



     SEC. 5. EXCHANGE TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

       (a) Equal Value Exchange.--The value of the Federal land 
     and non-Federal land to be exchanged under this Act--
       (1) shall be equal; or
       (2) shall be made equal in accordance with subsection (c).
       (b) Appraisals.--
       (1) In general.--The value of the Federal land and non-
     Federal land shall be determined by the Secretary through 
     appraisals conducted in accordance with--
       (A) the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land 
     Acquisitions;
       (B) the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal 
     Practice; and
       (C) Forest Service appraisal instructions.
       (2) Value of certain federal land.--In conducting the 
     appraisal of the parcel of Federal land described in section 
     3(3)(C), the appraiser shall not consider the easement 
     required for that parcel under subsection (d)(1) for purposes 
     of determining the value of that parcel.
       (c) Equalization of Values.--
       (1)  Surplus of non-federal land.--If the final appraised 
     value of the non-Federal land exceeds the final appraised 
     value of the Federal land, the County shall donate to the 
     United States the excess value of the non-Federal land, which 
     shall be considered to be a donation for all purposes of law.
       (2) Surplus of federal land.--
       (A) In general.--If the final appraised value of the 
     Federal land exceeds the final appraised value of the non-
     Federal land, the value of the Federal land and non-Federal 
     land may be equalized by the County--
       (i) making a cash equalization payment to the Secretary;
       (ii) conveying to the Secretary certain land located in the 
     County, comprising approximately 160 acres, as generally 
     depicted on the map entitled ``Sellar Park Parcel'' and dated 
     August 2004; or
       (iii) using a combination of the methods described in 
     clauses (i) and (ii), as the Secretary and the County 
     determine to be appropriate.
       (B) Disposition and use of proceeds.--
       (i) Disposition of proceeds.--Any cash equalization payment 
     received by the Secretary under subparagraph (A)(i) shall be 
     deposited in the fund established by Public Law 90-171 
     (commonly known as the ``Sisk Act'') (16 U.S.C. 484a).
       (ii) Use of proceeds.--Amounts deposited under clause (i) 
     shall be available to the Secretary, without further 
     appropriation, for the acquisition of land or an interest in 
     land in the State for addition to the National Forest System.
       (d) Conditions on certain conveyances.--
       (1) Conditions on conveyance of crystal river parcel.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior shall not 
     convey to the County the parcel of land described in section 
     3(3)(C) until the County grants to the Aspen Valley Land 
     Trust, the Roaring Fork Conservancy, or any other entity 
     acceptable to the Secretary of the Interior and the County, a 
     permanent conservation easement to the parcel, the terms of 
     which--
       (i)(I) provide public access to the parcel; and
       (II) require that the parcel shall be used only for 
     recreational, fish and wildlife conservation, and open space 
     purposes; and
       (ii) are acceptable to the Secretary of the Interior.
       (B) Reversion.--In the deed of conveyance that conveys the 
     parcel of land described in section 3(3)(C) to the County, 
     the Secretary of the Interior shall provide that title to the 
     parcel shall revert to the United States at no cost to the 
     United States if--
       (i) the parcel is used for a purpose other than that 
     described in subparagraph (A)(i)(II); or
       (ii) the County or the entity holding the conservation 
     easement elect to discontinue administering the parcel.
       (2) Conditions on conveyance of wildwood parcel.--
       (A) In general.--Before the Secretary conveys to the County 
     the parcel described in section 3(3)(A), the Secretary shall 
     require the County, at the expense of the County, to transmit 
     to the Secretary a quitclaim deed to the parcel that 
     permanently relinquishes any claim that, before the date of 
     introduction of this Act, was brought against the United 
     States asserting the right, title, or interest of the 
     claimant in and to the parcel.
       (B) Reservation of easement.--In the deed of conveyance of 
     the parcel described in section 3(3)(A) to the County, or at 
     request of the County, to the Aspen Valley Land Trust, the 
     Secretary shall, as determined to be appropriate by the 
     Secretary in consultation with the County, reserve to the 
     United States a permanent easement to the parcel for the 
     location, construction, and public use of the East of Aspen 
     Trail.

     SEC. 6. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

       (a) Incorporation, Management, and Status of Acquired 
     Land.--
       (1) In general.--Land acquired by the Secretary under this 
     Act shall become part of the White River National Forest.
       (2) Management.--On acquisition, land acquired by the 
     Secretary under this Act shall be administered in accordance 
     with the laws (including rules and regulations) generally 
     applicable to the National Forest System.
       (3) Land and water conservation fund.--For purposes of 
     section 7 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 
     (16 U.S.C. 460l-9), the boundaries of the White River 
     National Forest shall be deemed to be the boundaries of the 
     White River National Forest as of January 1, 1965.
       (b) Revocation of Orders and Withdrawal.--
       (1) Revocation of orders.--Any public orders withdrawing 
     any of the Federal land from appropriation or disposal under 
     the public land laws are revoked to the extent necessary to 
     permit disposal of the Federal land.
       (2) Withdrawal of federal land.--On the date of enactment 
     of this Act, if not already withdrawn or segregated from 
     entry and appropriation under the public land laws (including 
     the mining and mineral leasing laws) and the Geothermal Steam 
     Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), the Federal land is 
     withdrawn, subject to valid existing rights, until the date 
     of the conveyance of the Federal land to the County.
       (3) Withdrawal of non-federal land.--On acquisition of the 
     non-Federal land by the Secretary, the non-Federal land is 
     permanently withdrawn from all forms of appropriation and 
     disposition under the public land laws (including the mining 
     and mineral leasing laws) and the Geothermal Steam Act of 
     1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
       (c) Boundary Adjustments.--The Secretary with jurisdiction 
     over the land and the County may agree to--
       (1) minor adjustments to the boundaries of the Federal land 
     and non-Federal land; and
       (2) modifications or deletions of parcels and mining claim 
     remnants of Federal land or non-Federal land to be exchanged 
     on Smuggler Mountain.
       (d) Map.--If there is a discrepancy between a map, acreage 
     estimate, and legal or other description of the land to be 
     exchanged under this Act, the map shall prevail unless the 
     Secretary with jurisdiction over the land and the County 
     agree otherwise.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ENZI (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Hagel, and Mr. 
        Schumer);
  S. 2905. A bill to protect members of the Armed Forces from 
unscrupulous practices regarding sales of insurance, financial, and 
investment products; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from New York 
to introduce legislation to stop the sale of questionable financial 
products through hard sales tactics to our military personnel and their 
families. Over the course of recent months, it has become increasingly 
clear that the lack of clear lines in the oversight of insurance and 
securities sales on military bases has allowed certain individuals to 
push high cost financial products on unknowing military personnel. This 
practice must be stopped now. Our soldiers and their families deserve 
much better than that especially since they are putting themselves on 
the front line day after day for our freedom.
  The bill that we introduce today will halt completely the sale of a 
mutual fund-like product that charges a 50-percent sales commission 
against the first year of contributions by a military family. 
Currently, there are hundreds of mutual fund products available on the 
market that charge less than 6 percent. The excessive sales charges of 
these contractually based financial products make them susceptible to 
abusive and misleading sales practices. Unfortunately, a small group of 
individuals target these products almost entirely to military families.
  In addition, certain life insurance products are being offered to our 
service members disguised and marketed as investment products. These 
products provide very low death benefits while charging very high 
premiums, especially in the first few years. Many of these products are 
unsuitable for the insurance and investment needs of military families.
  One of the major problems with the sales of insurance products on 
military bases is whether State insurance regulators or military base 
commanders are responsible for the oversight of sales agents. 
Typically, military base commanders will bar certain sales agents from 
a military base only to have the sales agents show up at other military 
facilities. Since there is no record of the bar, State insurance 
regulators have been unable to have adequate oversight of the 
individuals. The bill that we introduce today will rectify that 
problem. It will state clearly that State insurance regulators have 
jurisdiction of the sale of insurance products on military bases.

[[Page 21012]]

  In addition, the bill will urge State insurance regulators to work 
with the Department of Defense to develop life insurance product 
standards and disclosures. The Department of Defense also will keep at 
list of individuals who are barred or banned from military bases due to 
abuse or unscrupulous sales tactics and to share that list with Federal 
and State insurance, securities and other relevant regulators.
  Finally, the bill that we are introducing today will protect our 
military families by preventing investment companies to issue periodic 
payment plan certificates, the mutual fund-like investment product with 
extremely high first-year costs. This type of financial instrument has 
been criticized by securities regulators since the late 1960s.
  We believe that this legislation is but the first step in helping our 
military families. Last year, I worked with Senators Shelby, Sarbanes, 
Akaka and Stabenow to develop financial literacy initiatives for the 
Federal Government and for students. My colleague from New York and I 
will be working next year to strengthen the financial literacy programs 
for military personnel. By providing military families with the tools 
to analyze and compare financial products, we will give them an 
advantage over sales agents who attempt to sell high cost financial and 
insurance products ill-suited to military life.
  It should be noted that there are many upstanding financial and 
insurance companies that sell very worthwhile investment and insurance 
products to military families. They should be applauded for the fine 
job that they do in helping our families. This bill is targeted at the 
few who abuse the system and prey upon our military in times when our 
country needs them the most.
  Last night, a similar bipartisan bill passed the House of 
Representatives by an overwhelming vote of 396-2. Congress is fully 
aware of the dangers faced by our military personnel in keeping our 
country safe from harm. Likewise, we must do all that we can to arm our 
soldiers when they face the dangers of planning for their financial 
futures.
  I urge my colleagues to take up this bill immediately so that we can 
help our men and women in the military and their families.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Graham of 
        Florida, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Feingold, Mr. 
        Rockefeller, and Mr. Kohl):
  S. 2906. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for reductions in the medicare part B premium through 
elimination of certain overpayments to Medicare Advantage 
organizations; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, on a late Friday afternoon back on 
September 3, 2004, the Bush Administration announced, just before the 
Labor Day holiday weekend, that there will be a 17.4 percent increase 
in the Medicare Part B premium for seniors and people with 
disabilities. The increase would raise premiums for seniors and people 
with disabilities from $66.60 per month to $78.20 per month and 
represents the largest dollar increase in the history of the Medicare 
program.
  In fairness, the premium is set in statute to reflect 25 percent of 
Medicare Part B spending. However, a large share of the increase is due 
directly to provisions that were included in the Medicare prescription 
drug bill that passed last year that did far more to help HMOs, 
insurance companies, and drug companies than it did for Medicare 
beneficiaries. In fact, because of this formula, the dramatic increase 
in payments made to HMOs and insurance companies also has the very 
unfortunate effect of increasing the Medicare premium, even for seniors 
and people with disabilities that either do not have access to an HMO 
or choose not to enroll in an HMO.
  As a result, today I am introducing legislation, the ``Affordability 
in Medicare Premiums Act,'' with Senators Mikulski, Graham of Florida, 
Corzine, Harkin, Durbin, Feingold, Rockefeller, and Kohl, that would 
reduce the 17.4 percent premium increase announced by the 
Administration and instill greater fairness in the Medicare premium in 
the future. It would do so in three ways.
  First, the bill recognizes that one of the contributing factors in 
the dramatic increase in the Medicare premium was the enactment of 
provider and managed care plan payment increases in the Medicare drug 
bill. In the case of payments targeted exclusively to managed care 
plans, the Congressional Research Service has estimated that payments 
to HMOs will increase by 17.4 percent between 2004 and 2005. The CMS 
Office of the Actuary estimates that the vast majority of the increase 
comes from payments to HMOs over and above that made to traditional 
Medicare for either preventive services or in the physician payment 
adjustment.
  As a result of these targeted increases in payments just to HMOs, Dr. 
Brian Biles, with George Washington University and the Commonwealth 
Fund, has estimated that HMOs will be paid $2.7 billion, or 7.8 
percent, in excess of traditional, fee-for-service Medicare in 2005. 
Moreover, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, or MedPAC, has 
found that in almost one-third of the counties in the United States 
will have payments to HMOs that will exceed that of traditional 
Medicare by more than 20 percent.
  I voted against the Medicare prescription drug bill, in part due to 
the overpayments made to HMOs in that legislation. If the rhetoric 
behind private insurance plans is that they will modernize and save 
Medicare money, it certainly makes little sense to overpay them by what 
the CMS Office of the Actuary estimates to be $50 billion over the next 
10 years. That is why I have cosponsored legislation to eliminate that 
overpayment.
  In the meantime, for the 89 percent of Medicare enrollees that choose 
not to enroll or do not even have access to a Medicare HMO, they 
certainly should not have to pay 25 percent of the Part B costs of the 
overpayment or excessive subsidies to managed care plans through what 
is now called the Medicare Advantage program, as they are required to 
now.
  Consequently, our legislation, the ``Affordability in Medicare 
Premiums Act,'' would eliminate that part of the Medicare premium that 
is attributable to the costs associated with these overpayments to 
HMOs. Just as somebody should not have to pay the premium of another 
for choosing a more costly health plan, our Nation's senior citizens or 
people with disabilities should not have to pay higher premiums because 
the Administration and Congress choose to overpay HMOs in the Medicare 
program.
  Unfortunately, as it works now, if more Medicare beneficiaries 
decided this year to enroll in Medicare HMOs, then Medicare spending 
increases, on average, by at least 8.4 percent for each new managed 
care enrollee. With that increased cost, all Medicare beneficiaries, 
even those that neither have access to nor choose not to enroll in an 
HMO must pay higher premiums.
  Second, the bill recognizes that HMOs are also overpaid by Medicare 
even further due to the Administration's decision to not appropriately 
``risk adjust'' payments to health plans. As MedPAC explained in its 
March 2004 Report to the Congress, ``From the time plans were first 
paid based on capitation, the program has adjusted the capitation rates 
to reflect expected health care spending differences among plans based 
on the characteristics of their enrollees.'' In 1997, Congress required 
the Secretary to improve the risk adjustment system. However, in 
implementation of the new system, which is phased in to cushion the 
impact on health plans, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 
or CMS, went further by estimating the impact of the new system on 
aggregate plan payments and has restored the difference.
  MedPAC has argued against this and points out that without accurate 
adjustments it results in even further inequity between traditional 
Medicaid and private health plans. As MedPAC says, ``If plans in 
general attract

[[Page 21013]]

healthier-than-average beneficiaries, the Medicare program pays more 
than these same beneficiaries would cost in the [fee-for-service] 
program.''
  Dr. Biles estimates that the CMS policy will add another $1.4 
billion, or 4.0 percent, to health plan overpayments. The CMS Office of 
the Actuary estimates that if this policy continues over the next 10 
years that it will cost the Medicare program an additional $54 billion 
in overpayments. HMOs should not reap a significant financial windfall 
by avoiding serving Medicare beneficiaries who have greater health care 
needs than average. Moreover, once again, those that do not have access 
to or choose not to enroll in a Medicare HMO should not be required to 
pay higher premiums for these overpayments.
  Therefore, the legislation requires CMS to risk adjust health plan 
payments and dictates that these Part B savings be redirected into 
reducing the Medicare Part B premiums for all Medicare beneficiaries. 
Furthermore, Part A savings would be applied to reduce the federal 
deficit and extend the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund.
  And finally, our bill repeals the $10 billion that was established in 
the Medicare drug bill to allow the Secretary to pay health plans for 
what is called a ``health plan stabilization fund.'' This fund truly 
serves no other purpose than to further increase overpayments and 
subsidies to health plans. Savings in Medicare Part B from the repeal 
of the provision are also redirected into reducing Medicare premiums 
for all Medicare beneficiaries. Once again, Part A savings would be 
applied to reduce the federal deficit and further extend the solvency 
of the Medicare Trust Fund.
  If nothing is done in the next two months, this premium increase will 
result in a cumulative increase in premiums of 56.4 percent between 
2001 and 2005. That is unacceptable to our nation's senior citizens and 
disabled citizens who often live on fixed incomes. Rather than hiding 
this fact, as the Administration has sought to do, we urge them to do 
something about it by supporting this critical and urgent legislation.
  The ``Affordability in Medicare Premiums Act'' is all about 
priorities. For the 89 percent of Medicare beneficiaries that are not 
enrolled in an HMO, they should not have to pay added premiums as a 
result of an estimated $114 billion in overpayments to HMOs over the 
next 10 years. We have chosen to help senior citizens and people with 
disabilities living on fixed incomes over HMOs. It is a matter of 
simple fairness.
  Dr. Biles estimates that the average premium would decline for 
Medicare beneficiaries by at least $5 per month if our legislation is 
passed.
  I would also underscore that by requiring risk adjustment and 
repealing the $10 billion PPO fund, about half of those savings would 
be Medicare Trust Fund or Part A dollars. As a result, the legislation 
has the effect of both extending the solvency of the Medicare Trust 
Fund and also saving taxpayers over $30 billion in coming years.
  And finally, the Medicaid program would also save hundreds of 
millions of dollars over the next ten years due to the fact that 
Medicaid pays the cost-sharing and premiums for low-income senior 
citizens and the disabled who are both enrolled in Medicare and 
Medicaid. The Federal Funds Information for States, or FFIS, has 
estimated that the Medicare Part B premium increase will cost the 
Medicaid program over $800 million in 2005. By reducing the Medicare 
premium, the Medicaid program--and thereby, both federal and state 
governments and taxpayers--will see spending decline in this area.
  I would like to thank Senators Mikulski, Graham of Florida, Corzine, 
Harkin, Durbin, Feingold, Rockefeller, and Kohl for working with me on 
introducing this important legislation on behalf of our nation's 
seniors and disabled enrolled in Medicare.
  I ask for unanimous consent that the Fact Sheet supporting the 
legislation and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 AFFORDABILITY IN MEDICARE PREMIUMS ACT

       Senators Jeff Bingaman, Barbara Mikulski, Bob Graham, Jon 
     Corzine, Tom Harkin, Russ Feingold, Jay Rockefeller, and Herb 
     Kohl are introducing legislation entitled the ``Affordability 
     in Medicare Premiums Act.'' The bill would substantially 
     reduce the growth in the Medicare Part B premium scheduled to 
     take place in 2005 and instill greater fairness in the 
     Medicare Part B premium in the future. It would do so in a 
     fiscally responsible manner while also managing to extend the 
     solvency of the Medicare Part A Trust Fund and reduce the 
     Federal deficit.


                               Background

       On September 3, 2004, the Bush Administration announced 
     that the Medicare Part B premium will rise from $66.60 per 
     month in 2004 to $78.20 per month in 2005--a 17.4 percent 
     increase. This $11.60 monthly or $138 a year increase for 
     Medicare enrollees represents the single largest in the 
     history of the Medicare program.
       One of the major factors contributing to the dramatic 
     increase was the enactment of provider and managed care plan 
     payment increases in the Medicare Modernization Act. In the 
     case of payments to managed care plans, the Centers for 
     Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Office of the Actuary 
     estimates that payments will increase by 14.4 percent between 
     2004 and 2005. This will occur on a base payment to HMOs that 
     was already estimated by the Commonwealth Fund to exceed fee-
     for-service costs by 8.4 percent or $552 per Medicare 
     Advantage plan enrollee in 2004.
       Since the increase in payments to Medicare Advantage health 
     plans attributable to Part B spending is paid for by 
     increased premiums for all Medicare beneficiaries, the result 
     is that senior citizens and people with disabilities that are 
     not enrolled in Medicare HMOs have been and will increasingly 
     be cross-subsidizing overpayments to these Medicare HMOs.


  Reduces Part B Premiums for the 89 Percent of Those Not Enrolled in 
                             Medicare HMOs

       The legislation would eliminate this cross-subsidization by 
     making sure that the 89 percent of Medicare enrollees that 
     currently choose not to enroll or do not have access to a 
     Medicare HMO are no longer paying for the overpayments to 
     these plans. The legislation would achieve this by requiring 
     CMS to estimate the Part B premium for Medicare beneficiaries 
     at what the cost would be if HMOs were paid at 100% of the 
     cost of traditional Medicare fee-for-service.
       In short, rather than subsidizing HMOs, the legislation 
     allows seniors and people with disabilities--many on fixed 
     incomes and with large out-of-pocket costs (an estimated 
     $3,455 for senior citizens enrolled in Medicare)--to have 
     their Part B premium reduced to use these dollars on their 
     own health care rather than for overpayments to HMOs that 
     they have chosen not to enroll in or to which they do not 
     even have access.
       For example, according to the Congressional Research 
     Service (CRS), as of March 2003, the following states had 
     either no enrollment or less than 5 percent of their Medicare 
     beneficiaries enrolled in managed care plans: Montana, 
     Wyoming, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, 
     Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Arkansas, 
     Mississippi, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, West 
     Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New Hampshire, 
     Vermont, Maine, and Alaska.
       As the Commonwealth Fund has found, ``Over 40 percent of 
     Medicare beneficiaries, particularly those living in rural 
     areas, do not have access to a Medicare Advantage plan. Nor 
     do all Medicare beneficiaries in urban areas have their 
     physicians in Medicare Advantage plan networks.'' As a 
     result, virtually all of the Medicare beneficiaries in these 
     states, often with no access to a Medicare HMO at all, are 
     paying for the overpayment to managed care plans operating in 
     other areas in the country.
       Furthermore, even for states with larger enrollment in 
     Medicare HMOs, such as California, Massachusetts, New York, 
     New Mexico, or Rhode Island, it makes little sense for those 
     not enrolled in managed care plans to pay the rapidly growing 
     Part B premium due to HMO overpayments that were already 
     occurring in Medicare but are now scheduled to increase much 
     more rapidly as a result of the Medicare Modernization Act.


  Improves Health Plan Payments and Further Reducing Premiums for All 
                           Medicare Enrollees

       The bill further recognizes that HMOs are overpaid by 
     Medicare in two ways--first, by the direct overpayment in 
     legislation, and second, by the failure of the Bush 
     Administration to appropriately ``risk adjust'' payments to 
     health plans based on the fact that health plans attract, on 
     average, healthier people than those in traditional Medicare. 
     Congress passed legislation in 1997 as part of the Balanced 
     Budget Act that required payments to plans to be adjusted or 
     ``risk adjusted'' based on the health of their enrollees. 
     However, CMS has interpreted the law to allow it to risk 
     adjust payments in a ``budget neutral'' manner by 
     redistributing plan overpayments among all plans.
       The CMS Office of the Actuary estimates that the Bush 
     Administration's failure to adjust for the health of plan 
     enrollees led to an

[[Page 21014]]

     overpayment of $3 billion in 2004 and would lead to another 
     $54 billion in overpayments if payments are not risk adjusted 
     through 2014.
       Therefore, the legislation requires CMS to risk adjust 
     health plan payments in a manner that saves the Medicare 
     program these funds. Furthermore, those savings will be 
     further plowed back into reducing the Medicare Part B premium 
     for all Medicare beneficiaries, including those enrolled in 
     Medicare Advantage plans.
       And finally, it repeals the $10 billion that was 
     established in the Medicare Modernization Act that allows the 
     Secretary to pay PPOs for what is called a ``health plan 
     stabilization fund.'' This fund serves no purpose other than 
     to increase overpayments to PPOs over and above what Medicare 
     Advantage plans already receive. Savings from the repeal of 
     this provision are also plowed back into reducing the 
     Medicare Part B premium for all Medicare beneficiaries, 
     including those enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans.


               saves the Medicaid Program Funding As Well

       The Federal Funds Information for States has estimated that 
     the Medicare Part B premium increase will cost states by over 
     $800 million in CY 2005. This legislation would significantly 
     reduce that impact.


    Ensures Legislation is Fiscally Responsible Manner, Extends the 
  Solvency of the Medicare Part A Trust Fund, and Reduces the Federal 
                             Budget Deficit

       The savings from these two changes in payments to HMOs are 
     used to reduce the Medicare Part B premiums for seniors 
     citizens and people with disabilities in a fiscally 
     responsible manner while also extending the solvency of the 
     Medicare Part A Trust Fund, reducing spending in the Medicaid 
     program, and reducing the federal deficit.

                                S. 2906

       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 ``Affordability in Medicare 
     Premiums Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF MEDICARE PART B PREMIUM FOR INDIVIDUALS 
                   NOT ENROLLED IN A MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLAN.

       Section 1839(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395r(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), in the first sentence, by striking 
     ``The Secretary'' and inserting ``Subject to paragraph (5), 
     the Secretary''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5)(A) For each year (beginning with 2005), the Secretary 
     shall reduce the monthly premium rate determined under 
     paragraph (3) for each month in the year for individuals who 
     are not enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan (including such 
     individuals subject to an increased premium under subsection 
     (b) or (i)) so that the aggregate amount of such reductions 
     in the year is equal to the aggregate amount of reduced 
     expenditures from the Federal Supplementary Medicare 
     Insurance Trust Fund that the Secretary estimates would 
     result in the year if the annual Medicare+Choice capitation 
     rate for the year was equal to the amount specified under 
     subparagraph (D) of section 1853(c)(1), and not subparagraph 
     (A), (B), or (C) of such section.
       ``(B) In order to carry out subsections (a)(1) and (b)(1) 
     of section 1840, the Secretary shall transmit to the 
     Commissioner of Social Security and the Railroad Retirement 
     Board by the beginning of each year (beginning with 2005), 
     such information determined appropriate by the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Commissioner of Social Security and the 
     Railroad Retirement Board, regarding the amount of the 
     monthly premium rate determined under paragraph (3) for 
     individuals after the application of subparagraph (A).''.

     SEC. 3. FUNDING REDUCTIONS IN THE MEDICARE PART B PREMIUM 
                   THROUGH REDUCTIONS IN PAYMENTS TO MEDICARE 
                   ADVANTAGE ORGANIZATIONS.

       Section 1839(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395r(a)), as amended by section 2, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), in the first sentence, by striking 
     ``paragraph (5)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (5) and (6)''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) For each year (beginning with 2005), the Secretary 
     shall reduce the monthly premium rate determined under 
     paragraph (3) for each month in the year for each individual 
     enrolled under this part (including such an individual 
     subject to an increased premium under subsection (b) or (i)) 
     so that the aggregate amount of such reductions in the year 
     is equal to an amount equal to--
       ``(A) the aggregate amount of reduced expenditures from the 
     Federal Supplementary Medicare Insurance Trust Fund in the 
     year that the Secretary estimates will result from the 
     provisions of, and the amendments made by, sections 4 and 5 
     of the Affordability in Medicare Premiums Act of 2004; minus
       ``(B) the aggregate amount of reductions in the monthly 
     premium rate in the year pursuant to paragraph (5)(A).''.

     SEC. 4. APPLICATION OF RISK ADJUSTMENT REFLECTING 
                   CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE ENTIRE MEDICARE 
                   POPULATION IN PAYMENTS TO MEDICARE ADVANTAGE 
                   ORGANIZATIONS.

       Effective January 1, 2005, in applying risk adjustment 
     factors to payments to organizations under section 1853 of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-23), the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services shall ensure that payments to 
     such organizations are adjusted based on such factors to 
     ensure that the health status of the enrollee is reflected in 
     such adjusted payments, including adjusting for the 
     difference between the health status of the enrollee and 
     individuals enrolled under the original medicare fee-for-
     service program under parts A and B of title XVIII of such 
     Act. Payments to such organizations must, in aggregate, 
     reflect such differences.

     SEC. 5. ELIMINATION OF MA REGIONAL PLAN STABILIZATION FUND 
                   (SLUSH FUND).

       Subsection (e) of section 1858 of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395w-27a), as added by section 221(c) of the 
     Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization 
     Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173), is repealed.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in 
introducing the Affordability in Medicare Premiums Act of 2004. This 
bill would protect seniors against the outrageous increases in their 
Medicare costs. It does this by preventing HMOs from taking money out 
of the pockets of seniors.
  Health care costs are skyrocketing, and seniors are paying a greater 
share out of their pockets each year. Medicare premiums are on the 
rise. Prescription drug costs are shooting through the roof. Seniors 
are facing higher co-pays and deductibles for doctor visits, and 
hospital and skilled nursing home visits. While seniors are paying more 
and more, the administration has just announced the largest increase in 
Medicare premiums in the history of Medicare.
  Just last year this administration supported a Medicare benefit that 
provides seniors only a hollow promise for a prescription drug benefit. 
This new benefit will force over 2 million seniors to lose their drug 
coverage, coerce seniors into HMOs, while doing nothing to stop the 
soaring cost of prescription drugs.
  Now this administration announces a 17.4 percent increase in Part B 
premiums. That's an extra $11.60 out of a seniors pocket each month. 
Seniors are falling further and further behind, while their Medicare 
premiums are getting larger, and their Social Security barely keeps up 
with inflation. Our seniors are struggling to buy the basics like food, 
clothing and other simple necessities. And that's not okay.
  I ran the numbers and here's what I found. Medicare Part B insurance 
premiums are rising faster and faster every year. In 2003, they rose 
8.7 percent. This year, Medicare Part B premiums rose by 13.5 percent. 
Next year these premiums will rise by 17.4 percent, which is the 
biggest increase in Medicare history.
  In contrast, Social Security cost of living adjustments (COLA's) rose 
by a mere 1.4 percent in 2003; and 2.1 percent in 2004; and are 
projected to rise only about 3 percent for 2005. So, there's less and 
less of a senior's Social Security check to make ends meet.
  Medicare provides health insurance coverage to 41 million seniors and 
disabled. Roughly 570,000 Marylanders rely on Medicare. These benefits 
need to be stable and secure. That's what I'm fighting for.
  I believe honor thy mother and father is not just a good commandment 
to live by, it is good public policy to govern by. This bill would 
eliminate the 17.4 percent increase in premiums, which saves seniors 
$11.60/month. This bill would also lower premiums paid by seniors below 
today's rate of $66.00/per month by using the savings from stopping 
subsidies to HMO's. My bill is fully paid for by stopping the 
overpayments to HMOs. I do not believe that HMO's should not get higher 
reimbursements to serve seniors than traditional Medicare. My bill 
would also eliminate the $10 billion HMO slush fund for insurance 
companies to participate in the new Medicare drug plan. This would save 
a senior at least $115 next year to a senior on a fixed income. This is 
a small fortune.
  This bill is not an answer to skyrocketing health care costs, but it 
is a stopgap measure. It will give seniors a little breathing room.
  I am working hard on several bills to fix the Prescription Drug 
Benefit that

[[Page 21015]]

was passed last year, including legislation that protects seniors 
Social Security COLA's; legislation that provides a real drug benefit 
for seniors; and, legislation that allow the government to negotiate 
with drug companies to lower the cost of prescription drugs. I am 
fighting to end the giveaways to insurance companies, and use those 
savings to improve Medicare.
  Congress created Medicare to provide a safety net for seniors. It is 
time to stop putting money in the pockets of HMOs and use that money to 
provide quality care for seniors. This bill is a good first step down 
that road, but a you can see, it is not the only step. Seniors cannot 
afford 17 percent increases in their Medicare premiums.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in expressing support for this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 2907. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to improve the 
quality and efficiency of health care delivery through improvements in 
health care information technology, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to announce the 
introduction of the Information Technology for Health Care Quality Act. 
Let me thank Senator Kennedy for joining me in introducing this bill. 
By encouraging health care providers to invest in information 
technology (IT), this legislation has the potential to bring 
skyrocketing health care costs under control and improve the overall 
quality of care in our nation.
  We are facing a health care crisis in our country. The Census Bureau 
recently released a report showing that 45 million Americans were 
without health insurance in 2003--an increase of 1.4 million over 2002. 
In many respects, we have the greatest health system in the world, but 
far too many Americans are unable to take advantage of this system.
  The number of uninsured continues to rise because the cost of health 
care continues to soar. Year after year, health care costs increase by 
double-digit percentages. The cost of employer-sponsored coverage 
increased by 11 percent this year, after a 14 percent increase in 2003. 
Employers are dropping health care coverage because they can no longer 
afford to foot the bill.
  One of the ways to provide health care coverage to every American is 
to reign in health care costs. And expanding the use of IT in health 
care is the best tool we have to control costs. Studies have shown that 
as much as one-third of health care spending is for redundant or 
inappropriate care. Estimates suggest that up to 14 percent of 
laboratory tests and 11 percent of medication usage are unnecessary. 
Finally, and perhaps most disturbingly, we know that it takes, on 
average, 17 years for evidence to be incorporated into clinical 
practice. Along these same lines, a recent study showed that patients 
receive the best evidence-based treatment only about half the time.
  Significant cost-savings will undoubtedly be realized simply by 
moving away from a paper-based system, where patient charts and test 
results are easily lost or misplaced, to an electronic system where 
data is easily stored, transferred from location to location, and 
retrieved at any time. With health IT, physicians will have their 
patients' medical information, at their fingertips. A physician will no 
longer have to take another set of X-Rays because the first set was 
misplaced, or order a test that the patient had six months ago in 
another hospital because she is unaware that the test ever took place. 
The potential for cost-savings from simply eliminating redundancies and 
unnecessary tests, and reducing administrative and transaction costs, 
is substantial.
  Of course, when we consider the improved quality of care and patient 
safety that will result from wider adoption of health IT, the impact on 
cost is even greater. For example, IT can provide decision support to 
ensure that physicians are aware of the most up-to-date, evidence-based 
best practices regarding a specific disease or condition, which will 
reduce expensive hospitalizations. Given all of these benefits, 
estimates suggest that Electronic Health Records (EHRs) alone could 
save more than $100 billion each year. The full benefits of IT could be 
multiple hundreds of billions annually. Such a significant reduction in 
health care costs would allow us to provide coverage to millions of 
uninsured Americans.
  The benefits of IT go beyond economics. I am sure that all of my 
colleagues are familiar with the Institute of Medicine (IOM) estimate 
that up to 98,000 Americans die each year as a result of medical 
errors. A RAND Corporation study from last year showed that, on 
average, patients receive the recommended care for certain widespread 
chronic conditions only half of the time. That is an astonishing 
figure. To put it in a slightly different way, for many of the health 
conditions with which physicians should be most familiar, half of all 
patients are essentially being treated incorrectly.
  Most experts in the field of patient safety and health care quality, 
including the IOM, agree that improving IT is one of the crucial steps 
towards safer and better health care. By providing physicians with 
access to patients' complete medical history, as well as electronic 
cues to help them make the correct treatment decisions, IT has the 
potential to significantly impact the care that Americans receive. It 
is impossible to put a value on the potential savings in human lives 
that would undoubtedly result from a nationwide investment in health 
care information technology.
  It might seem counterintuitive that we can realize tremendous cost 
savings while, at the same time improving care for patients. But in 
fact, improving patient care is essential to reducing costs. IT is the 
key to unlocking the door--it has the potential to lead to improvements 
in care and efficiency that will save patients' lives, reduce costs, 
and reduce the number of uninsured.
  Unfortunately, despite the impact that IT can have on cost, 
efficiency, patient safety, and health care quality, most health care 
providers have not yet begun to invest in new technologies. The use of 
IT in most hospitals and doctors' offices lags far behind almost every 
other sphere of society. The vast majority of written work, such as 
patient charts and prescriptions, is still done using pen and paper. 
This leads to mistakes, higher costs, reduced quality of care, and in 
the most tragic cases, death.
  There is no question in my mind that the Federal government has a 
significant role to play in expanding investment in health IT. The 
legislation that I am introducing today defines that role. First, this 
bill would establish Federal leadership in defining a National Health 
Information Infrastructure (NHII) and adopting health IT standards. 
While I am pleased that the administration has already appointed a 
National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, I believe that 
the authority given to the Coordinator and the resources at his 
disposal are not equal to the enormity of his task. That is why my 
legislation creates an office in the White House, the Office of Health 
Information Technology, to oversee all of the Federal Government's 
activities in the area of health IT, and to create and implement a 
national strategy to expand the adoption of IT in health care.
  This office would also be responsible for leading a collaborative 
effort between the public and private sectors to develop technical 
standards for health IT. These standards will ensure that health care 
information can be shared between providers, so that a family moving 
from Connecticut to California will not have to leave their medical 
history behind. At the same time, this bill would ensure that the 
adopted standards protect the privacy of patient records. While the 
creation of portable electronic health records is an important goal, 
privacy and confidentiality must not be sacrificed.
  This legislation would also provide financial assistance to 
individual health care providers to stimulate investment in IT, and to 
communities to help them set up interoperable IT infrastructures at the 
local level, often

[[Page 21016]]

referred to as Local Health Information Infrastructures--LHIIs. IT 
requires a huge capital investment. Many providers, especially small 
doctors offices, and safety-net and rural hospitals and health centers, 
simply cannot afford to make the type of investment that is needed.
  Finally, this legislation would provide for the development of a 
standard set of health care quality measures. The creation of these 
measures is critical to better understanding how our health care system 
is performing, and where we need to focus our efforts to improve the 
quality of care. IT has the potential to drastically improve our 
ability to capture these quality measures. All recipients of Federal 
funding under this bill would be required to regularly report on these 
measures, as well as the impact that IT is having on health care 
quality, efficiency, and cost savings.
  The establishment of standard quality measures is also the first step 
in moving our nation towards a system where payment for health care is 
more appropriately aligned--a system in which health care providers are 
paid not simply for the volume of patients that they treat, but for the 
quality of care that they deliver. To this end, my legislation would 
require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to report to 
Congress on possible changes to Federal reimbursement and payment 
structures that would encourage the adoption of IT to improve health 
care quality and patient safety.
  It is time for our country to make a concerted effort to bring the 
health care sector into the 21st century. We must invest in health IT 
systems, and we must begin to do so immediately. The number of 
uninsured, the skyrocketing cost of care, and the number of medical 
errors should all serve as a wake-up call. We have a tool at our 
disposal to address all of these problems, and there is no more time to 
waste. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Ensign, Ms. 
        Cantwell, Mr. DeWine, and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 2908. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to strengthen 
prohibitions against animal fighting, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to introduce the 
``Animal Fighting Protection Enforcement Act of 2004'' with my 
colleagues Senators Feinstein, Ensign, Cantwell, DeWine and Leahy.
  The bipartisan bill we are introducing today is very similar to S. 
736 with the same title, introduced by Senator Ensign and currently 
cosponsored by fifty-one Senators including me. This new bill is 
identical to another bill, H.R. 4264, pending in the House of 
Representatives.
  Specifically, this bill provides felony penalties by authorizing jail 
time of up to two years for violations of Federal animal fighting law, 
rather than the misdemeanor penalty (up to one year) under current law. 
Most States have felony-level penalties for animal fighting violations, 
but federal prosecutors are reluctant to pursue animal fighting cases 
without felony-level penalties. Both the Senate and House included this 
felony provision in their farm bills in 2002, with identical wording, 
but the provision was dropped in conference. The Senate also passed 
this as an amendment to the ``Healthy Forests'' bill, but it was again 
removed in conference.
  The bill also outlaws cockfighting implements by prohibiting 
interstate and foreign commerce of the razor-sharp knives and ice pick-
like gaffs are strapped onto birds' legs during cockfighting combat. 
These devices are specially designed for cockfighting and have no other 
known purpose.
  H.R. 4264 tracks language in Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 
U.S.C. 2156) that prohibits interstate and foreign commerce of animals 
for fighting purposes. This covers dog fighting, cockfighting, and 
other fights between animals ``conducted for purposes of sport, 
wagering, or entertainment,'' with an explicit exemption for an 
activity ``the primary purpose of which involves the use of one or more 
animals in hunting another animal or animals, such as waterfowl, bird, 
raccoon, or fox hunting.''
  Under current law, it already is illegal to: 1. Sponsor or exhibit an 
animal in an animal fighting venture if the person knows that any 
animal was bought, sold, delivered, transported, or received in 
interstate or foreign commerce for participation in the fighting 
venture. 2. Knowingly sell, buy, transport, deliver, or receive an 
animal in interstate or foreign commerce for purposes of participation 
in a fighting venture, regardless of the law in the destination State, 
dog fighting is illegal in all 50 States; cockfighting is illegal in 48 
States. 3. Knowingly use the Postal Service or any interstate 
instrumentality to promote an animal fighting venture in the U.S., 
e.g., through advertisement, unless the venture involves birds and the 
fight is to take place in a State that allows cockfighting. As 
explained on USDA's website explaining the Federal animal fighting law, 
``In no event may the Postal Service or other interstate 
instrumentality be used to transport an animal for purposes of having 
the animal participate in a fighting venture, even if such fighting is 
allowed in the destination state''.
  The efforts to pass further Federal animal fighting prohibitions have 
been endorsed by more than 150 local police and sheriffs departments 
across the country, as well as The Humane Society of the United States, 
the National Chicken Council, representing 95 percent of U.S. chicken 
producers/processors, the American Veterinary Medical Association, and 
many other organizations. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to 
cosponsor this bill and support its quick passage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 2909. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to allow 
the Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation to increase the diameter of a 
natural gas pipeline located in the Delaware Water Gap National 
Recreation Area; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to introduce a bill to 
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to modify existing right-of-way 
agreements to allow an increase in the diameter of an existing natural 
gas pipeline in the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area in Pike 
County, Pennsylvania.
  In 1947, Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation installed a 14-inch 
diameter pipeline, known as Line 1278, that included construction in 
the then rural areas of Pike, Northampton and Monroe counties. This 
system has become an important part of the energy delivery system to 
key eastern markets.
  The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) directed 
Columbia in 2002 and 2003 to take actions going forward with Line 1278, 
including additional testing, additional cathodic, corrosion, 
protection and replacement of portions of the pipeline. DOT ordered 
that the replacement must be completed by 2007. To comply with the DOT 
instructions, Columbia in December 2003 filed an application with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to replace about 43 miles of this 
pipeline, including 3.5 miles of the line that now lie within the 
Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area.
  At issue are two right-of-way agreements affecting property now 
within the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area that do not 
allow Columbia to increase the diameter of the pipeline. The Recreation 
Area was formed in 1965 through the acquisition of many tracts of 
private property. Columbia's Line 1278 runs through 14 of these tracts 
under the terms of right-of-way agreements obtained from landowners 
prior to the Recreation Area's creation. Agreements affecting 12 of the 
14 tracts include language allowing Columbia to increase the diameter 
of the pipeline. However, two of the agreements, representing about 890 
feet of the pipeline, do not include such authorization.
  Under current law, the Secretary of the Interior lacks legislative 
authorization to enter into an agreement to

[[Page 21017]]

grant a pipeline easement that will allow an increase in the diameter 
of Line 1278. To complete the planned upgrade to improve energy 
reliability in the region, enabling legislation is required.
  This bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into 
an agreement with Columbia to grant a pipeline easement to allow an 
increase in the diameter of Line 1278 from 14 inches to 20 inches in 
diameter. Timely enactment will allow the replacement to be performed 
efficiently in conjunction with the overall replacement project, and 
the uniform size will facilitate the use of ``smart pigging'' 
technology to utilize inspection vehicles inside pipelines to help 
assure long-term safety and reliability of this important energy 
infrastructure.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation for this important 
project.

                          ____________________