[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 20778-20785]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr Bond, Mr. Voinovich, and Mrs. 
        Clinton):
  S. 3552. A bill to conserve the United States fish and aquatic 
communities through partnerships that foster fish habitat conservation 
and improve the quality of life for the people of the United States and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the National Fish 
Habitat Conservation Act, which I am introducing today along with my 
colleagues Senators Bond and Voinovich. This legislation would 
establish the most comprehensive effort ever attempted to treat the 
causes of fish habitat decline.
  Healthy waterways and robust fish populations are vital to the well-
being of our society. They provide clean water and sustainable 
fisheries. They also provide recreational value to those who fish wild 
waters or canoe tranquil

[[Page 20779]]

streams. Unfortunately, today 40 percent of our fish populations are in 
decline and half of our waters are impaired. Unless we act in an 
informed and coordinated fashion, fish habitats will continue to be 
lost.
  Our Nation's current efforts to address threats to fish species are 
often highly fragmented and not comprehensive enough to reverse this 
downward trend. Under the National Fish Habitat Conservation Act, 
Federal Government agencies, state and local governments, conservation 
groups, fishing industry groups, and businesses will work together 
collectively for the first time to conserve and protect aquatic 
habitats.
  This legislation leverages Federal, State and private funds to build 
regional partnerships aimed at addressing the nation's biggest 
fisheries problems. By directing critical new resources towards the 
nation's fish and aquatic communities through these partnerships, we 
can foster fish habitat conservation efforts and improve the quality of 
life for the American people. Using a bottom-up approach, the goal of 
this effort is to foster landscape scale, multi-state aquatic habitat 
improvements across the country that perpetuate not only fishery 
resources but the tradition of recreational fishing.
  The National Fish Habitat Conservation Act authorizes $75 million 
annually to be directed toward fish habitat projects that are supported 
by regional Fish Habitat Partnerships. Based on the hugely successful 
North American Wetlands Conservation Act model, this legislation 
establishes a multi-stakeholder National Fish Habitat Board charged 
with recommending projects to the Secretary of Interior for funding. 
Regional Fish Habitat Partnerships are responsible for implementing 
approved on-the-ground projects that are designed to protect, restore 
and enhance fish habitats and fish populations.
  The National Fish Habitat Conservation Act lays the foundation for a 
new paradigm of how fish habitats should be protected and preserved. 
This bill will bring together all of the different groups that have a 
stake in the health and productivity of our nation's fish habitats and 
I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important 
legislation.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, today, along with my colleagues Senators 
Lieberman and Voinovich, I am introducing the National Fish Habitat 
Conservation Act. This legislation will enable us to stop the causes of 
fish habitat decline throughout the Nation.
  Preventing the decline of fish species and their habitat will require 
everyone working together. Under the National Fish Habitat Conservation 
Act, Federal Government agencies, State and local governments, 
conservation groups, fishing industry groups, and businesses will all 
work together to preserve our aquatic habitats.
  Together, they will improve waterways vital to securing a robust fish 
population. The well-being of our water resources is essential not only 
for healthy fish but also those who boat through beautiful streams and 
fish in wild waters for recreational entertainment. This, however, may 
not be an option if we do not take action now. As of today, 40 percent 
of the fish population is in decline and half of our waters have become 
weakened and polluted.
  The National Fish Habitat Conservation Act will authorize $75 million 
every year to fund local fish habitat projects supported by regional 
Fish Habitat Partnerships. This bill creates a multistakeholder 
National Fish Habitat Board that will recommend projects to the 
Secretary of the Interior for funding. This idea draws from the already 
successful North American Wetlands Conservation Act model, which has 
benefited wetlands in America, Canada, and Mexico. The Regional Fish 
Partnerships will also be called on to execute approved on-the-ground 
projects designed to ensure the improvement of the fish population and 
habitat.
  By using a bottom-up approach, we will engage those who most directly 
impact the health of local waterways and fish populations. These 
partnerships are imperative to our efforts in conserving the fish 
species and our goal of improving the quality of life for the American 
people.
  I am thankful to Senator Lieberman for his work on this bipartisan 
effort and encourage all of my colleagues to join our efforts to 
protect fish and fish habitat.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 3554. A bill to provide employees of small employers with access 
to quality, affordable health insurance coverage; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today I introduce the Affordable Coverage 
for Small Employers Act of 2008, with my colleague, Senator Joseph 
Lieberman. This legislation would tackle one of the nation's most 
pressing domestic challenges, ensuring all Americans have access to 
affordable, high quality health care. While the Affordable Coverage for 
Small Employers Act may not be the panacea to all of our Nation's 
healthcare woes, I believe it is a reasonable first step along the path 
of reform and it represents a viable solution to cover the uninsured.
  In my view, that solution begins with helping small employers gain 
access to affordable, high quality health insurance. Over half of the 
Nation's uninsured has a connection to a business that employs fewer 
than 100 employees. By extending access to affordable health coverage 
to those individuals through their employers, we can make significant 
progress in reducing the number of Americans who do not have health 
insurance.
  Broadly, the Affordable Coverage for Small Employers Act incentivizes 
reform of the existing small group market so employers have access to 
affordable coverage options to meet their particular needs. It provides 
national direction to ensure consistency across the entire system, but 
relies upon the existing infrastructure forged by the States and the 
private market to ultimately provide new coverage options for small 
employers. Additionally, it provides graduated, income-sensitive 
subsidies through tax credits to low-income individuals to help offset 
the cost of their health coverage. It also provides graduated tax 
credits to small employers who contribute at least 50 percent toward 
the cost of their employees' premiums to encourage them to purchase 
coverage through new, regional purchasing exchanges.
  One of the key principles of the proposal is regional cooperation. 
The existing system of state-based regulation of the small group market 
has resulted in a great deal of inefficiency in the marketing and 
selling of health coverage products. One of the key elements of reform 
from the Federal perspective should be encouraging regional 
cooperation--and consistency of regulation--across State lines. The 
Affordable Coverage for Small Employers Act accounts for this by 
apportioning States with similar existing insurance regulations into 
new ``Health Coverage Exchange Regions.'' Each of these regions will be 
charged with developing a common set of rating guidelines so that all 
insurance products sold in the health coverage exchange are regulated 
by the same set of rules. Over time, such common regulatory policies 
will have the effect of stabilizing the small group market, and 
generating efficiencies that could lead to longterm stabilization of 
premium cost increases.
  A stakeholder board will govern each Health Coverage Exchange Region 
and must include at a minimum representation from the insurance 
commissioners from all member States. That way, States will be the 
driving force in determining how to harmonize existing rating 
guidelines to improve stability in the small group market. Each 
Regional Board will have the flexibility to develop its own common 
rating guidelines, in addition to allowing other hard-to-cover groups, 
like sole proprietors and individuals, to participate in programs 
sponsored by the Health Coverage Exchange Region.
  While adoption of the common rating guidelines is voluntary, the 
Affordable Coverage for Small Employers Act provides States with 
generous incentives to do so. First, small employers in a given State 
will be unable to purchase health coverage through its region's Health 
Coverage Exchange unless their

[[Page 20780]]

State has adopted the common guidelines. Additionally, small employers 
and employees only will have access to the Federal subsidies once the 
guidelines are adopted. Change can be difficult, especially in regard 
to reform of current regulatory structures. The bill recognizes this 
fact by allowing States a strong voice in developing the common rating 
guidelines, as well as additional flexibility to implement such 
guidelines in special cases where they differ significantly from 
existing policy.
  Another key issue the Affordable Coverage for Small Employers Act 
addresses is that of ensuring small employers, regardless of their 
location, has access to a comprehensive health benefit package. We 
should not expect our small employers to settle for coverage that is 
far less comprehensive than what a majority of Americans have access 
to. Congress can and should do better on this front, and the proposal 
does. All small employers will have access to a standard benefit 
package that mirrors the benefits available to Members of Congress and 
other Federal employees. Over time, this benefit package will be 
updated to ensure that covered services reflect advances in medical 
science and are supported by sound, evidence-based research.
  While the Affordable Coverage for Small Employers Act leaves most 
responsibility for day-to-day operations of the Health Coverage 
Exchange to state-based regional boards, it recognizes the need for 
uniformity across the entire system by creating a National Health 
Coverage Policy Board comprised of key stakeholders representing the 
health care field. This Executive-appointed, independent body will 
apportion States into Health Coverage Exchange Regions and set broad 
policy guidelines for the overall system. While I firmly believe the 
reforms needed to improve access in the small group market should occur 
at the State level, there needs to be a national presence in the 
overall effort to ensure health care quality, greater regulatory 
consistency and maximize administrative efficiencies.
  I also would like to comment on the subsidies available in the 
legislation. Researchers and policymakers alike are well aware that 
there are some working Americans who simply will be unable to afford 
the cost of health insurance no matter how inexpensive it might be. The 
rhetoric surrounding the issue of the uninsured always includes 
reference to making health insurance more affordable and I fully 
support that intent. In the work Senator Lieberman and I have done on 
this issue, we have found that there are very few politically viable 
reform policies that would significantly reduce the cost of health 
coverage for small employers. We can implement initiatives to increase 
market efficiencies and provide employers with more coverage options, 
but those efforts still will not always make health coverage affordable 
for all Americans. In our proposal, allocating targeted, advanceable 
and refundable tax credits to those who need them is the Federal 
Government's primary responsibility.
  To further encourage participation in the Exchange and to recognize 
the important role employers have in funding health benefits, the 
Affordable Coverage for Small Employers Act also includes advanceable, 
refundable tax credits for employers. Employers that contribute at 
least 50 percent of employees' premiums would be eligible for these tax 
credits to help offset the cost of their share of health coverage. I 
believe this approach will help employers who may be struggling to make 
ends meet and provide their employees the health coverage they need to 
stay healthy and productive.
  It is essential that Congress act on this issue. We owe it to our 
small employers to ensure they have the same health benefit options 
available to them as larger employers, whose size and structure allow 
them to self-fund insurance coverage for their employees. The small 
business community is the backbone of the American economy, 
representing over 99 percent of all the Nation's businesses. But we 
often fail to recognize the essential role small businesses play in the 
economy. Each year, they provide approximately 75 percent of new jobs; 
account for over half of private sector output; and provide 40 percent 
of private sales. Small businesses represent the realization of the 
American dream. However, even with all their successes, there are many 
challenges that threaten their continued vitality.
  In the unfurling healthcare reform debate, there is no shortage of 
innovative ideas. Aggressive proposals have been introduced on both 
sides of the aisle just this year. With over 46 million Americans 
uninsured and many more struggling with the cost of coverage, the time 
has come for Congress to seriously reform our health care system to 
ensure all Americans have access to care. Should support exist to 
pursue a comprehensive change, there are several proposals that hold a 
number of good ideas that combine the best of private and public 
section ingenuity. Recognizing that many people like receiving their 
health insurance through their employer; Congress may choose to pursue 
a more incremental approach--focusing first on fixing the part of the 
system that is not working--the small group market. For a reform debate 
to be successful, we need to bring all key stakeholders to the 
negotiating table, including employers. We share common problems, and 
we must work to develop common solutions.
  As Congress continues its discussion of healthcare reform; I am 
hopeful that the concepts included in this proposal will be given full 
consideration as we begin to develop solutions to the difficult, long-
standing problems in the health insurance market. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to craft policies 
that significantly expand small employers' access to quality health 
insurance coverage. This is the help they deserve, and this is the help 
that I know we can give them if we put our ideological differences 
aside and begin working together to make real progress on this issue.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor Senator 
Smith's small business health care bill, the Affordable Coverage for 
Small Employers Act of 2008. The health of our Nation's most vulnerable 
citizens is too often neglected because they lack the income to access 
our languishing health care system. This legislation marshals our 
resources in response to the health care challenge. First, it 
recognizes that employees, and their families, should not have to forgo 
health insurance merely because they work for a small business. Second, 
it provides small business owners the assistance they need to obtain 
health coverage for their workers. Consequently, this bill offers small 
business workers and their families, the security many of us take for 
granted, by providing them access to medical care through a free and 
independently-regulated market.
  The health care problem is nearly ubiquitous. Our fellow citizens who 
lack insurance increasingly find access to care insuperable. As they 
are denied care they increasingly stress the delivery system by seeking 
care from providers of last-resort, such as emergency rooms. Emergency 
room visits reached an all-time high in 2006. Americans visited the ER 
more than 119 million times that year, and the number of visits to our 
hospitals' emergency rooms grew 46 percent in the last 10 years. 
Researchers have examined the link between patient access and 
utilization of providers of last-resort. Health policy experts have 
definitively shown that patients who cannot promptly and consistently 
access quality medical care subsequently choose to forgo care and 
eventually seek treatment in emergency rooms. Medical care received in 
emergency rooms and hospitals as a result of neglected ailments nearly 
always cost more than the care forgone. In the end, patients suffer an 
increased rate of adverse medical outcomes; outcomes that could have 
been prevented and medical expenses that could have been avoided.
  More than half of the Nation's 47 million uninsured individuals are 
employed by, or have family members who are employed by, a business 
with fewer than 100 employees. Smaller businesses are substantially 
less likely to offer their employees health coverage than

[[Page 20781]]

larger businesses. The smaller a business is, the less likely it offers 
health benefits. The lack of insurance--and thus access to care prior 
to safety-net providers--is particularly galling among low-income 
workers. Research indicates that small business owners want to offer 
their employees health benefits but do not, because either they cannot 
afford to or they know their employees lack the income to enroll. In a 
recent poll conducted by the Employee Benefit Research Institute, 47 
percent of small businesses said they would be somewhat likely to offer 
health benefits if they were offered a tax credit and 30 percent said 
they were much more likely to offer health benefits.
  A bipartisan approach is the only viable solution in dealing with a 
problem of this size. I am pleased to introduce this bill along with 
Senator Smith. I am also pleased to see several other health care bills 
also brought forward with bipartisan support. In prior years, politics 
instead of policy limited the practical options for health care reform. 
As a result, the Congress did not address the problem in a significant 
way. We must look past the assignment of political victors and losers 
when we champion health care legislation. In the absence of reform, the 
real losers are our fellow citizens suffering from preventable diseases 
because they could not go to the doctor or did not receive care in 
time. They will not benefit from a merely political victory. However, 
while we have the means to provide succor but fail to act, they most 
certainly lose.
  Any effort to reform health care needs to be deliberate. Our 
Government was established to prevent rash policy-making. Perhaps with 
the opportunity design health insurance from scratch, we would not rely 
on employers to provide coverage as a benefit. Nevertheless, our burden 
is to transform the system we have in order to make it work for every 
American. We need to assist employers who are nearly, but not quite, 
capable of offering insurance coverage and reward employers who have 
already made investments in the health of their employees.
  The Affordable Coverage for Small Employees Act will help small 
businesses and their employees obtain and retain coverage. Moreover, it 
provides a framework for expanding coverage across the Nation. First, 
this bill offers tax credits to employers and employees of small 
businesses in order to abet their purchase of health insurance. 
Employers paying for a larger portion of their employee's coverage are 
rewarded with a larger credit. Employees who make a lower income 
receive more assistance. Without an incentive, it is highly likely that 
these individuals will not receive the comprehensive coverage they need 
and the security that comes with it.
  Financial incentives alone are not enough though. Small businesses 
face larger administrative costs then large businesses, and consumers 
in the individual market face higher premiums than consumers in group 
plans. This bill will create a working and competitive marketplace 
through regional health boards. These boards will allow for businesses 
and employees to shop for medical coverage from multiple insurers, and 
even across State lines. These boards will establish a health-coverage 
``exchange'' whose main objectives will be to serve as a central 
purchasing site for health coverage, to provide information to 
purchasers and consumers about participating health plans, to 
facilitate and streamline enrollment, and to ensure health plan 
compliance with minimum operating and quality standards.
  Third, in order to protect consumers, an independent advisory board, 
the National Policy Board, in conjunction with the National Academies 
of Sciences' Institute of Medicine, will establish a standard benefit 
package in order that employees receive the coverage they need. An 
independent body provides the governance needed to regulate this 
complex marketplace while retaining insulation from the interested 
parties that would seek to benefit themselves at the expense of others.
  There already exists evidence that this approach will work. Several 
States are experimenting with various forms of tax credits to expand 
coverage. In Oklahoma and Arizona employees and employers are being 
helped through tax credits to secure insurance. The initial results of 
these programs have been encouraging. The Federal Government has been 
paralyzed for too long, debating which policy prescriptions will yield 
success at an affordable cost. These ``laboratories of democracy'' are 
leading the way and this legislation follows in their spirit.
  The road to substantial health care reform has been long but the path 
in front of us is lit brighter than the path behind us when we 
travelled it. Over the preceding years, our knowledge of what works, 
what is feasible, and what is improbable has grown immeasurably. With 
this knowledge and a kindred spirit, I am certain we can guarantee the 
best health care for every American.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Ms. Stabenow):
  S. 3555. A bill to establish a pilot program to provide for the 
preservation and rehabilitation of historic lighthouses; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3555

       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 ``National Lighthouse 
     Stewardship Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. FUNDING FOR HISTORIC LIGHTHOUSE PRESERVATION.

       Title III of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 
     U.S.C. 470w et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 310. NATIONAL LIGHTHOUSE STEWARDSHIP PILOT PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means a 
     State, unit of local government, or nonprofit organization 
     that--
       ``(A) provides financial assistance and grants to local 
     governmental units and nonprofit organizations to preserve 
     and maintain historic lighthouse structures;
       ``(B) owns a lighthouse that is listed or eligible for 
     listing on the National Register; or
       ``(C) has a right to maintain and rehabilitate a lighthouse 
     described in subparagraph (B) that is owned by the Federal 
     Government.
       ``(2) Fund.--The term `Fund' means the National Lighthouse 
     Stewardship Fund established by subsection (c)(1).
       ``(b) Lighthouse Stewardship Pilot Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a 3-year 
     pilot program under which the Secretary shall use amounts 
     made available under subsection (c)(3) to provide grants to 
     eligible entities to preserve and rehabilitate historic 
     lighthouse structures.
       ``(2) Distribution to eligible entities.--
       ``(A) Application.--To be eligible for a grant under this 
     subsection, an eligible entity shall submit to the Secretary 
     an application at such time, in such form and manner, and 
     including such information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(B) Approval or disapproval.--Based on criteria 
     established by the Secretary, the Secretary shall approve or 
     disapprove an application submitted under subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) Availability of grant funds.--
       ``(i) In general.--On approval of an application under 
     subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall make the grant funds 
     available to the eligible entity.
       ``(ii) Use of existing funds.--To the maximum extent 
     practicable, the Secretary shall provide funding through 
     existing lighthouse grant programs administered by State 
     governments.
       ``(c) National Lighthouse Stewardship Fund.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury 
     of the United States a fund, to be known as the `National 
     Lighthouse Stewardship Fund', consisting of such amounts as 
     are appropriated to the Fund under paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Transfers to fund.--There are appropriated to the 
     Fund, out of funds of the Treasury not otherwise 
     appropriated, amounts equivalent to amounts collected as 
     taxes and received in the Treasury under section 60301 of 
     title 46, United States Code, but not more than $20,000,000 
     for any 1 fiscal year.
       ``(3) Use of fund.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     transfer amounts deposited in the Fund for each fiscal year 
     to the Secretary to provide grants to eligible entities in 
     States based on the ratio that--
       ``(A) the total number of lighthouses in the State; bears 
     to

[[Page 20782]]

       ``(B) the total number of lighthouses in the Inventory of 
     Historic Light Stations prepared by the Secretary.
       ``(4) Availability.--Amounts in the Fund shall remain 
     available until expended, without fiscal year limitation.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Barrasso):
  S. 3556. A bill to improve the administration of the Minerals 
Management Service; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today Senator Barrasso and I are 
introducing legislation to reform the Minerals Management Service at 
the U.S. Department of Interior. Most Americans have probably never 
heard of the Minerals Management Service. At least they hadn't heard of 
it until the Inspector General of the Interior Department issued a 
report a couple of weeks ago documenting sordid details of MMS 
employees accepting gifts and dinners and drugs and sex from employees 
of the oil and gas companies they were supposed to be doing business 
with on behalf of American taxpayers.
  The MMS is responsible for collecting over $10 billion a year in 
lease and royalty payments from companies that drill for oil and gas 
and mine coal and minerals on our Federal public lands, both onshore 
and offshore. MMS is also the agency that actually issues the leases 
for drilling to oil and gas companies off our coasts. And when you hear 
the call for more oil drilling just remember that it is MMS that's 
responsible for issuing those leases and making sure that oil and gas 
companies protect the environment and pay their fair share of royalties 
to the American people. And that should give everyone pause.
  Two years ago, I stood here on the floor and spoke for several hours 
to draw the Senate's attention to the mismanagement of our offshore oil 
and gas leasing program involving MMS and the royalty relief program. 
The problem then was the failure of MMS to include a key clause in 
almost 1,000 leases that would have required oil and gas companies to 
pay the U.S. Treasury higher royalties if the price of oil and gas 
increased.
  The law MMS was supposed to be implementing was originally written 
back in the mid-1990's when oil prices were low--around $15 a barrel, 
to encourage drilling by giving oil companies a break on paying 
royalties on new leases in the Gulf of Mexico. The royalties didn't 
kick in until the price of oil rose to a certain point where the 
companies would make a profit. Oil prices, as we now know, didn't stay 
low, but it turns out that ``royalty relief'' didn't phase out the way 
it should have. We learned that the MMS had bungled things so badly 
that they forgot to include provisions in their leases requiring any 
royalties on those particular leases.
  At the time, the Government Accountability Office estimated that this 
single dereliction of duty--which covered leases issued between 1995 
and 2000--would cost American taxpayers as much as $11.5 billion . . . 
and that was based on oil prices of between $50 and $70 dollars--half 
of what oil prices have been this year. GAO recently updated that 
amount to as much as $14.7 billion. We held hearings on this problem in 
the Energy Committee but the bottom line is that nothing has been done 
to fix this problem.
  We have also learned from Inspector General and from agency 
whistleblowers that MMS has essentially stopped conducting audits of 
the billions of dollars of royalty payments it collects, and it has 
allowed oil and gas companies to improperly change the amount they owe 
by allowing them to self-report adjustments to their royalties 
affecting millions of dollars in payments.
  Most recently, the Inspector General for the Department of Interior, 
Earl Devaney, has issued a report that details his office's criminal 
investigation into the Royalty-in-Kind program at the Minerals 
Management Service. Under the Royalty-in-Kind program, oil and gas 
companies are allowed to pay their royalties to the Federal Government 
not in dollars, but by physically delivering barrels of oil or cubic 
feet of gas to MMS. MMS, in turn, is responsible for selling that oil 
and gas and turning the proceeds over to the Treasury. The Inspector 
General found that instead of putting the American people first, 
employees of the RIK program put themselves first. Mr. Devaney's 
investigation, in his words, found ``a culture of ethical failure.''
  I am not going to go through all of the sordid details of what the IG 
found, but I do ask unanimous consent to include his four page summary 
following my remarks.
  The bottom line is that this is an agency that is broken and needs to 
be fixed. The legislation that Sen. Barrasso and I are introducing will 
start to fix it.
  The legislation has five major components
  It requires that the head of the MMS be appointed by the President 
and must be confirmed by the Senate. MMS is the only major bureau 
within the Interior Department that does not require its director to be 
confirmed by the Senate.
  It requires MMS to implement a comprehensive audit program, including 
on-site financial audits of royalty payments.
  It gives the Secretary of the Interior 60 days to implement all of 
the Inspector General's recommendations from both the May business 
practices report and the more recent September ethics report. If that 
deadline is not met, the Royalty-in-Kind (RIK) Program would be 
suspended.
  It requires the Secretary to annually ``re-certify'' that the RIK 
program meets all Federal ethics and procurement laws and regulations. 
If that recertification is not completed, the RIK program would be 
suspended.
  It directs the Inspector General to annually review the MMS program, 
including the RIK certification process.
  I am pleased that Sen. Barrasso, the ranking Republican member of the 
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, which I chair, has agreed to 
be an original cosponsor of this bill. While it does not specifically 
address every single problem at MMS, it will begin to establish some 
basic accountability in an agency that has demonstrated that it has 
none.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
a letter of support be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3556

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

     SECTION 1. MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the 
     Department of the Interior.
       (2) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the Service.
       (3) Royalty-in-kind program.--The term ``royalty-in-kind 
     program'' means the program established under--
       (A) section 342 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 
     15902);
       (B) section 36 of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 192);
       (C) section 27 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1353); or
       (D) any other similar provision of law.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (5) Service.--The term ``Service'' means the Minerals 
     Management Service.
       (b) Establishment.--The Secretary shall--
       (1) establish and maintain within the Department the 
     Minerals Management Service; and
       (2) assign to the Service such functions as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate.
       (c) Director.--The Service shall be headed by a Director 
     who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the 
     advice and consent of the Senate.
       (d) Audits.--
       (1) Royalty audits.--The Director shall ensure that the 
     Service implements a comprehensive program of financial 
     audits of royalty payments and adjustments, including 
     physical on-site audits, on the basis of risk and statistical 
     samples.
       (2) Standards.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director shall promulgate 
     regulations that--
       (A) require that all employees of the Service that conduct 
     audits and compliance reviews meet professional auditor 
     qualifications that are consistent with the latest revision 
     of the Government Auditing Standards published by the 
     Government Accountability Office; and
       (B) ensure that all audits conducted by the Service are 
     performed in accordance with the standards.

[[Page 20783]]

       (3) Inspector general.--The Inspector General of the 
     Department shall--
       (A) conduct, annually and as necessary, audits of 
     activities of the Service, including leasing and royalty 
     activities; and
       (B) report the results of the audits of activities of the 
     Service (including leasing and royalty activities) and the 
     certifications required under subsection (e) to--
       (i) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the 
     Senate;
       (ii) the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (iii) the Secretary.
       (e) Royalties-in-Kind Program.--
       (1) Initial certification.--Subject to paragraph (3), not 
     later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary shall submit to Congress a certification that 
     all of the recommendations made by the Office of the 
     Inspector General of the Department as the result of 
     investigations that culminated in a memorandum dated 
     September 9, 2008, and a report dated May 2008 (C-EV-MMS-001-
     2008), with respect to the royalty-in-kind program have been 
     implemented.
       (2) Annual certifications.--Subject to paragraph (3), not 
     later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act and 
     each year thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a certification that the royalty-in-kind program is in full 
     compliance with Federal law (including regulations) governing 
     procurement and ethics.
       (3) Suspension.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, if the Secretary fails to make a certification required 
     under paragraph (1) or (2), the authority of the Secretary to 
     carry out each royalty-in-kind program is suspended during 
     the period--
       (A) beginning on the day after the deadline for the 
     certification under that paragraph; and
       (B) ending on the date the Secretary makes the 
     certification required under that paragraph.
                                  ____


                United States Department of the Interior


                               Memorandum

     To: Secretary Kempthorne
     From: Earl E. Devaney, Inspector General
     Subject: OIG Investigations of MMS Employees
       This memorandum conveys the final results of three separate 
     Office of Inspector General (OIG) investigations into 
     allegations against more than a dozen current and former 
     Minerals Management Service (MMS) employees. In the case of 
     one former employee, Jimmy Mayberry, he has already pled 
     guilty to a criminal charge. The cases against former 
     employees, Greg Smith and Lucy Querques Dennet, were referred 
     to the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice 
     (DOJ). However, that office declined to prosecute. The 
     remaining current employees await your discretion in imposing 
     corrective administrative action. Others have escaped 
     potential administrative action by departing from federal 
     service, with the usual celebratory send-offs that allegedly 
     highlighted the impeccable service these individuals had 
     given to the Federal Government. Our reports belie this 
     notion.
       Collectively, our recent work in MMS has taken well over 
     two years, involved countless OIG human resources and an 
     expenditure of nearly $5.3 million of OIG funds. Two hundred 
     thirty-three witnesses and subjects were interviewed, many of 
     them multiple times, and roughly 470,000 pages of documents 
     and e-mails were obtained and reviewed as part of these 
     investigations.
       I know you have shared my frustration with the length of 
     time these investigations have taken, primarily due to the 
     criminal nature of some of these allegations, protracted 
     discussions with DOJ and the ultimate refusal of one major 
     oil company--Chevron--to cooperate with our investigation. 
     Since you have already taken assertive steps to replace key 
     leadership and staff in the affected components of MMS, I am 
     confident that you will now act quickly to take the 
     appropriate administrative action to bring this disturbing 
     chapter of MMS history to a close.


                      A Culture of Ethical Failure

       The single-most serious problem our investigations revealed 
     is a pervasive culture of exclusivity, exempt from the rules 
     that govern all other employees of the Federal Government.
       In the matter involving Ms. Dennet, Mr. Mayberry and Milton 
     Dial, the results of this investigation paint a disturbing 
     picture of three Senior Executives who were good friends, and 
     who remained calculatedly ignorant of the rules governing 
     post-employment restrictions, conflicts of interest and 
     Federal Acquisition Regulations to ensure that two lucrative 
     MMS contracts would be awarded to the company created by Mr. 
     Mayberry--Federal Business Solutions--and later joined by Mr. 
     Dial. Ms. Dennet manipulated the contracting process from the 
     start. She worked directly with the contracting officer, 
     personally participated on the evaluation team for both 
     contracts, asked for an increase to the first contract 
     amount, and had Mayberry prepare the justification for the 
     contract increase. Ms. Dennet also appears to have shared 
     with Mr. Mayberry the Key Qualification criteria upon which 
     bidders would be judged, two weeks before bid proposals on 
     the first contract were due.
       In the other two cases, the results of our investigation 
     reveal a program tasked with implementing a ``business 
     model'' program. As such, Royalty in Kind (RIK) marketers 
     donned a private sector approach to essentially everything 
     they did. This included effectively opting themselves out of 
     the Ethics in Government Act, both in practice, and, at one 
     point, even explored doing so by policy or regulation.
       Not only did those in RIK consider themselves special, they 
     were treated as special by their management. For reasons that 
     are not at all clear, the reporting hierarchy of RIK bypassed 
     the one supervisor whose integrity remained intact 
     throughout, Debra Gibbs-Tschudy, the Deputy Associate 
     Director in Denver, where RIK is located. Rather, RIK was 
     reporting directly to Associate Director Dennet, who was 
     located some 1500 miles away in Washington, DC, and to whom 
     the unbridled, unethical conduct of RIK employees was 
     apparently invisible (although the Associate Director had 
     been made aware of the plan by RIK to explore more formal 
     exemption from the ethics rules.)
       More specifically, we discovered that between 2002 and 
     2006, nearly \1/3\ of the entire RIK staff socialized with, 
     and received a wide array of gifts and gratuities from, oil 
     and gas companies with whom RIK was conducting official 
     business. While the dollar amount of gifts and gratuities was 
     not enormous, these employees accepted gifts with prodigious 
     frequency. In particular, two RIK marketers received combined 
     gifts and gratuities on at least 135 occasions from four 
     major oil and gas companies with whom they were doing 
     business--a textbook example of improperly receiving gifts 
     from prohibited sources. When confronted by our 
     investigators, none of the employees involved displayed 
     remorse.
       We also discovered a culture of substance abuse and 
     promiscuity in the RIK program--both within the program, 
     including a supervisor, Greg Smith, who engaged in illegal 
     drug use and had sexual relations with subordinates, and in 
     consort with industry. Internally, several staff admitted to 
     illegal drug use as well as illicit sexual encounters. 
     Alcohol abuse appears to have been a problem when RIK staff 
     socialized with industry. For example, two RIK staff accepted 
     lodging from industry after industry events because they were 
     too intoxicated to drive home or to their hotel. These same 
     RIK marketers also engaged in brief sexual relationships with 
     industry contacts. Sexual relationships with prohibited 
     sources cannot, by definition, be arms-length.
       Finally, we discovered that two of the RIK employees who 
     accepted gifts also held inappropriate outside employment and 
     failed to properly report the income they received from this 
     work on their financial disclosure forms. Smith, in 
     particular, deliberately secreted the true nature of his 
     outside employment--he pitched oil and gas companies that did 
     business with RIK to hire the outside consulting firm--to 
     prevent revealing what would otherwise, at a minimum, be a 
     clear conflict of interest.


                               Conclusion

       As you know, I have gone on record to say that I believe 
     that 99.9 percent of DOI employees are hard-working, ethical 
     and well-intentioned. Unfortunately, from the cases 
     highlighted here, the conduct of a few has cast a shadow on 
     an entire bureau.
       In summary, our investigation revealed a relatively small 
     group of individuals wholly lacking in acceptance of or 
     adherence to government ethical standards; management that 
     through passive neglect, at best, or purposeful ignorance, at 
     worst, was blind to easily discernible misconduct; and a 
     program that had aggressive goals and admirable ideals, but 
     was launched without the necessary internal controls in place 
     to ensure conformity with one of its most important 
     principles: ``Maintain the highest ethical and professional 
     standards.'' This must be corrected.


                            Recommendations

       In conclusion, we offer the following Recommendations.
       1. Take appropriate administrative corrective action.
       Some very serious misconduct is identified in these 
     reports. While the OIG generally does not take a position 
     concerning what administrative corrective action might be 
     appropriate in any given matter, in this instance there may 
     be significant enough misconduct to warrant removal for some 
     individuals. Given the unwillingness of some to acknowledge 
     their conduct as improper, the subjects of our reports should 
     be carefully considered for a life-time ban from working in 
     the RIK program.
       2. Develop an enhanced ethics program designed specifically 
     for the RIK program.
       Given the RIK culture, an enhanced ethics program must be 
     designed for RIK, including, but not limited to, (1) an 
     explicit prohibition against acceptance of any gifts or 
     gratuities from industry, regardless of value; (2) a robust 
     training program to include written certification by 
     employees that they know and understand the ethics 
     requirements by which they are bound; and (3) an augmented 
     MMS Ethics Office.
       3. Develop a clear, strict Code of Conduct for the RIK 
     program.
       A fundamental Code of Conduct with clear obligations, 
     prohibitions, and consequences appears to be necessary to 
     repair the culture

[[Page 20784]]

     of misconduct in the RIK program. This code should include a 
     clear prohibition against outside employment with the oil and 
     gas industry or consultants to that industry. Given the 
     considerable financial responsibilities involved, MMS should 
     also consider implementing a Random Drug Testing program 
     specifically for RIK.
       4. Consider changing the reporting structure of RIK.
       The management reporting structure of the RIK program must 
     be seriously reconsidered. Given the challenges that will be 
     faced in rebuilding this program, it seems imperative that 
     RIK have management oversight in immediate proximity, not 
     some 1,500 miles away in Washington, DC.
       If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to 
     contact me at (202) 208-5745.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 3569. A bill to make improvements in the operation and 
administration of the Federal courts, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Schumer and 
Sessions in introducing a bipartisan bill that would greatly improve 
the administration and efficiency of our Federal court system. The 
Judicial Administration and Technical Amendments Act of 2008 is an 
attempt to assist the Federal judiciary by replacing antiquated 
processes and bureaucratic hurdles with the necessary tools for the 
21st century.
  I previously introduced a court improvement bill in the 108 Congress. 
I hope the bill we introduce today will pass the full Senate with 
unanimous support and not be held up by a Republican objection like the 
similar measure I introduced 4 years ago. I have also supported past 
legislative proposals from the Judicial Conference to improve the 
administration of justice in our Federal courts.
  In recent years, the job of the Federal judge has changed 
considerably. Today, Federal judges at both the trial and appellate 
level are hearing more cases with fewer available judicial resources. 
We have a responsibility to pass legislation that helps them keep up 
with changing times and circumstances.
  Our independent judiciary is the envy of the world, and we must take 
care to protect it. Just as it is the judiciary's duty to deliver 
justice in a neutral and unbiased manner, it is the duty of the 
legislative branch to provide the requisite tools for the women and men 
who honorably serve on our judiciary to ably fulfill their critical 
responsibilities.
  The legislation we introduce today contains technical and substantive 
proposals carried over from previous Congresses. The legislation also 
contains additional proposals that the Federal judiciary believes will 
improve its operations and allow it to continue to serve as a bulwark 
protecting our individual rights and liberties.
  First, the provisions in the bill facilitate and update judicial 
operations. For example, the bill would authorize realignments in the 
place of holding court in specified district courts. It also would 
remove a ``public drawing'' requirement for the selection of names for 
jury wheels, which is now a function performed more efficiently by 
computers. These provisions would add convenience to the men and 
women--who as lawyers, litigants, and jurors--appear before our Federal 
courts.
  Second, the bill contains provisions that would improve judicial 
resource management and strengthen the constitutional protection of 
Americans' right to serve on juries. The bill would make a juror 
eligible to receive a $10 supplemental fee after 10 days of trial 
service instead of 30 days. Juries serve to vindicate the rights of all 
Americans, including the poor, the powerless, and the marginalized. I 
am glad this bill takes steps to ensure that economic hardship will not 
be an obstacle to an individual performing his or her duty to serve on 
a jury.
  No American should be threatened or intimidated from exercising their 
right to serve on a jury. This legislation would strengthen the 
penalties for employers who retaliate against employees serving on jury 
duty. It would do so by increasing the maximum civil penalty for an 
employer who retaliates against an employee serving on jury duty from 
$1,000 to $5,000 and add the potential penalty of community service. 
The bill also provides district courts with the discretion to bring 
into court those individuals who fail to respond to jury summons, 
instead of having their appearance mandated by statute. This 
improvement would empower Federal judges to decide what action is 
appropriate for those who fail to respond to a jury summons.
  Third, in the area of criminal justice, provisions in the bill would 
also clarify existing law to better fulfill Congress's original intent 
or to make technical corrections. The bill makes technical corrections 
to a Federal probation and supervised release statute. By correcting 
these technical errors, we restore the original intent of Congress, 
including that intermittent confinement applies to supervised release 
as well as probation. As a former prosecutor, I am well aware that 
confinement, even intermittent confinement, is not always the 
appropriate response. I am glad that this provision includes the proper 
safeguards and limitations to ensure that intermittent confinement will 
not be abused.
  The legislation would also explicitly authorize the Director of 
Administrative Office to provide goods and services to pretrial 
defendants and clarifies similar authority recently made available for 
post-conviction offenders through the Second Chance Act of 2007. Under 
current law, there is no explicit statutory authority to provide for 
services on behalf of offenders who do not suffer from substance abuse 
problems or psychiatric disorders. This provision would fill in that 
gap by providing services to pretrial defendants to ensure their 
appearance at trial.
  Finally, the bill would ensure sufficient representation by Federal 
judges among the members of the Sentencing Commission. In 2003, House 
Republicans saddled the bipartisan and non-controversial AMBER Alert 
bill with numerous unrelated and ill-conceived provisions, collectively 
known as the ``Feeney Amendment,'' that effectively overturned the 
basic structure of the carefully crafted sentencing guideline system. 
The bill we introduce today contains a provision, similar to the JUDGES 
Act that I cosponsored in 2003, that would reverse the provisions in 
the Feeney Amendment that limited the number of Federal judges who can 
serve on the Sentencing Commission. Our Federal judges are experts on 
sentencing policy, indeed they preside over criminal sentencing 
proceedings daily; I am glad this restoration has been included.
  This important legislation has the support of the Administrative 
Office of the Courts, on behalf of the Judicial Conference, and 
senators on both sides of the aisle. Our judiciary needs these 
improvements to increase its efficiency and administrative operations. 
I urge my Senate colleagues to quickly pass this noncontroversial 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MENENDEZ:
  S. 3570. A bill to establish a National Public Health Coordinating 
Council to assess the impact of Federal health-related socio-economic 
and environmental policies across Federal agencies to improve the 
public's health; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the 
public's health, and I am introducing two pieces of legislation that 
will help us assure that healthy people live, work and learn in healthy 
buildings and healthy communities, S. 3570 and S. 3571.
  Public health is a shared responsibility of both public and private 
entities--Federal, State, and local governments, as well as independent 
organizations and even individuals in their local communities. We all 
have a role to play, and we must all do more if we are to truly improve 
the public's health. That is why today I am introducing the Public 
Health Coordinating Council Act. This bill will establish a National 
Public Health Coordinating Council, to be chaired by the Assistant 
Secretary of Health and the Surgeon General. This Council will be a 
forum to improve interagency communication, coordination and strategic 
collaboration across Federal agencies. We

[[Page 20785]]

should have confidence that policies and programs from one office 
support, rather than undermine, the policies and programs in another 
office. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that's the case within today's 
structure.
  For example, if the Department of Health and Human Services is 
working to reduce obesity, the 2nd leading cause of preventable death 
in the Nation, how well do the policies of the Transportation, Interior 
or Agriculture departments support these same goals? Are they working 
on programs to encourage public safety, or physical activity and 
healthy eating, as they should be?
  I look forward to passing this legislation and increasing the Federal 
Government's effectiveness in protecting the public's health.
  Secondly, another significant issue facing our Nation is escalating 
health care costs from chronic diseases--health conditions that can be 
reduced if we use our land responsibly and design and manage our local 
environments wisely.
  Our physical environment is not being designed to protect or promote 
health. The built environment--the places where we live, work, shop, 
and play--has an enormous impact on health, and can encourage active 
living and sound nutritional choices. How we plan and build our 
streets, homes, businesses and schools can either improve or compromise 
our health, and I am concerned that more often than not, we miss 
opportunities to get it right.
  Uninformed public policy decisions can contribute to health 
inequities, chronic disease, increased sprawl and traffic, decreased 
air and water quality, loss of green space and inappropriate siting of 
facilities and other unwanted health consequences.
  However, with good planning, we can intentionally and predictably 
improve health outcomes, improve individual safety, protect the 
environment, and lower public costs. For example, when car use was 
reduced during the 1966 Atlanta Olympic Games, asthma admissions to 
emergency rooms and hospitals also decreased.
  Obese and physically inactive workers have higher health care costs, 
lower productivity, increased absenteeism and higher workers' 
compensation claims. In one state, physical inactivity was estimated to 
cost $128 per person per year.
  So imagine, if 10 percent of Americans began a regular walking 
program, we could save $5.6 billion in heart disease costs. If you 
combine concerns over growing health care costs with concerns over 
growing waistlines and chronic diseases, it becomes clear very quickly 
that designing our environment to encourage walking and physical 
activity is a good investment.
  We can improve health outcomes by how we design our environments. 
People living in the most sprawling counties are likely to weigh on 
average six pounds more than people in the most compact counties, and 
are more likely to be obese and have high blood pressure.
  We can improve public safety outcomes by how we design our 
environments. The 10 most sprawling cities had traffic death rates 50 
percent higher than the 10 least sprawling.
  We can protect our environments by how we design them. Improved land 
use, design and engineering practices, and conservation and recycling 
substantially reduce contamination of major public water supplies, and 
preserve habitats and biodiversity of species.
  We can improve social connectedness by how we design our 
environments. Building healthy neighborhoods and communities increases 
social cohesiveness, improves mental health, reduces crime, and allows 
more seniors to ``age in place''. Designing our communities with short 
commuting distances increases time for extracurricular activities for 
our children, recreation/rejuvenation time after work for adults, and 
time for family members to spend together or involved in their 
communities.
  My bill, the Health Impact Assessment Act, will encourage community 
enviroments that improve, or at least do not harm the public's health. 
Health Impact Assessments, HIAs, are a relatively new strategy here in 
this country, although they have been successfully used for years in 
Europe and elsewhere to protect the public's health.
  Public health is generally not examined in the Environmental Impact 
Statement process in this country. Some innovative researchers and 
planners are trying HIAs here, including in Los Angeles and Atlanta. 
One recent example was an HIA for proposed oil and gas development in 
Alaska's North Slope region. Interestingly, they learned that the local 
community was concerned about loss of hunting grounds, increased 
contamination of their food supply and water quality, and an increased 
trafficking of alcohol and drugs. Their findings included measures to 
mitigate these health concerns, such as creating a health advisory 
board and increasing public safety officers, setting up a public health 
monitoring system and strategies to control spills and contaminants.
  My bill requests that the GAO identify what works best for assessing 
planning, the impact of land use and building design, and social policy 
on community health. It also creates a national clearinghouse and 
demonstration program to improve the built environment and promote 
health. Additionally, it strengthens CDC's capacity to promote HIA 
processes by developing guidance for assessing the potential health 
effects of social policy, land use and design, housing, and 
transportation policy and plans.
  I want to thank the National Association of County & City Health 
Officials, Partnership for Prevention, American College of Preventive 
Medicine, American Public Health Association, and Trust for America's 
Health for their help and support of this legislation.

                          ____________________