Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2003

Mr. President, yesterday, I introduced the first part of a series of proposals to protect and strengthen our nation's health care safety net. That bill, the ``Strengthening Our States'' or SOS Act of 2003,'' seeks to protect and improve the Medicaid program--a critical component of our country's health system. To repeat the words of Diane Rowland and Jim Tallon of the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, ``Medicaid is the glue that helps hold our health system together and takes on the highest-risk, sickest, and most expensive populations from private insurance and Medicare.

Like a waterfront community that seeks to set up barricades against a rising river, defending the Medicaid program from attacks, such as the idea of a block grant, is a top priority.

However, once that is assured, we must also take the next step and confront the fact that an estimated 41.2 million people, or almost 15 percent of the population, was without health insurance during the entire year of 2001, which was an increase of 1.4 million people over 2000.

Moreover, the numbers in 2002 and this year have undoubtedly worsened. A report by the National Coalition on Health Care says, ``The confluence of powerful economic forces, fueled by the terrorist attacks on September 11, have unleashed a `perfect storm' that could increase dramatically the number of uninsured in the U.S.--with as many as 6 million people in total losing their coverage in 2001 and 2002.''

The number in New Mexico are staggering. New Mexico leads or ranks second only to Texas in the percentage of its citizens who are uninsured. In fact, New Mexico is the only state in the country with less than half of its population having private health insurance coverage.

A rather shocking statistic, which also continues to worsen, is that one out of every three Hispanic citizens are uninsured. In fact, less than 43 percent of the Hispanic population now has employer-based coverage nationwide, which is in sharp comparison to the 68 percent of non-Hispanic whites who have employer-based coverage.

To address this growing crisis, I have worked closely with the American College of Physicians since last fall on the legislative proposal, which I call the ``Health Coverage, Affordability, Responsibility, and Equity Act'' or the ``HealthCARE Act of 2003.'' The proposal seeks to: First, build upon programs that currently work, including Medicaid, employer coverage, and the private market; second, provide choices for uninsured individuals, states, and small businesses while rejecting either employer or individual mandates; third, use methods that have bipartisan support by borrowing the best ideas from Democratic and Republican proposals; and, fourth, simplify rather than complicate coverage.

This is in sharp contrast, in a number of ways, to past efforts to create untried schemes or to impose mandates upon either businesses or the individual. It also seeks to bridge the divide between Democrats and Republicans. This has certainly not been easy to put together and nor will it be easy to pass. On the other hand, we have tried to start with the tools and principles more likely to get beyond the partisan divide.

As Julie Rovner of the National Journal recently wrote, ``If reforming the nation's healthcare system was easy, the old saw goes, it would have been done long ago. But for the moment, those who care about the issue seem to be succeeding only in butting each other's heads. Republicans keep pushing market-oriented reforms while Democrats want to expand existing public programs. And each party continues to reject the other's ideas. . . .''

The ``Health CARE Act'' seeks to break that partisan gridlock. First, it adopts and builds upon the notion of many Republicans to offer tax credits for the uninsured. As such, the bill would enact a new health insurance tax credit that is both refundable and advanceable to uninsured Americans with incomes up to 200 percent of the poverty level to purchase health coverage through a variety of options, including employer-coverage, State purchasing pools, or even the individual market--something pushed by a number of Republicans for many years but rejected by many Democrats.

Second, the legislation expands coverage through a State option with Federal financial support through the Medicaid program to anyone up to 100 percent of the poverty level. Medicaid has been a tried and tested program for low-income Americans over the years and is a far better and more viable option to people with incomes below the poverty level than a tax credit would be. Furthermore, few beneath the poverty level have the option of employer-coverage. Therefore, public programs, such as Medicaid, for low-income Americans makes far more sense than a tax credit.

Furthermore, through the strengthened and improved state purchasing pools provided for in the legislation, individuals and small businesses would be afforded better options to get coverage with a choice of plans that is typically not available to them with, what we believe will be, lower costs due to the ability to purchase coverage as a group.

Consequently, this approach attempts to build upon the ideas of both political parties, as it has both public program and tax credit aspects to it. Our hope is that people will see the things both parties like in it rather than focusing on what they do not like. In fact, we have also added the creation of an on-going expert health commission to make recommendations for further reforms and mid-course corrections in the future.

This bill is introduced in the spirit of compromise. To those on the right, I recognize your concern about the expansion of Medicaid as not being as market-oriented as you might prefer, but would point out that tax credits are virtually unworkable and employer-sponsored coverage often unavailable for people below the poverty level and that Medicaid is largely contracted out to private health plans--the same that many of you are enrolled in.

To those on the left, I recognize your concerns about tax credits and the potential for adverse selection with people buying coverage through the individual market, but I say to you that these are tax credits for low-income people and that we have taken steps in the legislation to mitigate problems that the added options in the bill create with respect to adverse selection. I would add that any expansion of coverage to people without health insurance is a good thing.

The most important message that I hope this bill carries is that we must stop having the perfect be the enemy of the good. This proposal is certainly not perfect but we hope it makes a very good start.

I would like to thank the American College of Physicians, or ACP, for their outstanding leadership and help in putting this legislation together. ACP has been a long-standing advocate for expanding health coverage and has authored landmark reports on the important role that health insurance has in reducing people's morbidity and mortality. In fact, to cite the conclusion of one of those studies, ``Lack of insurance contributes to the endangerment of the health of each uninsured American as well as the collective health of the nation.''

I would also like to thank the many people at the Economic and Social Research Institute, or ERSI, on their forethought, advice, and counsel as we refined the proposal over the past number of months. Their non- partisan approach and expertise have been invaluable to making the bill a workable and well-reasoned reality.

It should also be noted that the ideas put forth in the bill are based upon much of the expert work commissioned by ESRI, funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the Task Force on the Future of Health Insurance, funded by the Commonwealth Fund. As a result, the work of a number of other experts is reflected in the legislation and we thank you as well.

Among the endorsing organizations for this legislation are all of the leading primary care physician groups in our country. In addition to the American College of Physicians, the bill has been endorsed by the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Geriatrics Society.

As a practicing physician in New Mexico, Dr. Robert Strickland sums it up well. As he wrote in an editorial

published in the Albuquerque Journal about this legislation yesterday, ``As a New Mexico internist for 31 years, I have seen many uninsured people go without care until it is too late for me to do much to help them. The HealthCARE Act offers the potential of breaking the political gridlock that has allowed this crisis in health care to go on for far too long.''

I hope we can break the gridlock and urge my colleagues to heed the call of our nation's primary care doctors to support this legislation.

I would ask unanimous consent that letters of endorsement from the American College of Physicians, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Geriatrics Society, and Families USA, and the text of the legislation printed in the Record.

There being no ojection, the material was ordered to be printed in

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation with Senators Lugar, Lincoln, Corzine, Landrieu, Breaux, Kerry, Murray, Cantwell, Clinton, and Miller. This legislation, entitled the ``Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act of 2003,'' would significantly reduce the number of uninsured pregnant women and newborns by expanding coverage to pregnant women through Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, and to newborns through the first full year of life.

Sunday is Mothers' Day. Every year, we honor our Nation's mothers and we should take the time to assess how we can do better by them, including their health and well-being.

According to a recent report by Save the Children entitled ``The State of the World's Mothers,'' the United States fares no better than 11th in the world. Why is this? According to the report, ``The United States earned its 11th place rank this year based on several factors: One of the key indicators used to calculate the well-being for mothers is lifetime risk of maternal mortality . . . Canada, Australia, and all the Western and Northern European countries in the study performed better than the United States in this indicator.''

The study adds, ``Similarly, the United States did not do as well as the top 10 countries with regard to infant mortality rates.''

In fact, the United States ranks 21st in maternal mortality and 28th in infant mortality, the worst among developed nations. We should and must do better by our Nation's mothers and infants.

Throughout our Nation's history, there has been long-standing policy linking programs for pregnant women and infants, including Medicaid, WIC, and the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant. CHIP, unfortunately, fails to provide coverage to pregnant women beyond the age of 18. As a result, it is more likely that newborns eligible for CHIP are not covered from the moment of birth, and therefore, often miss having comprehensive prenatal care and those first critical months of life until their CHIP application is processed.

By expanding coverage to pregnant women through CHIP, the ``Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act'' recognizes the importance of prenatal care to the health and development of a child. As Dr. Alan Waxman of the University of New Mexico School of Medicine has written, ``Prenatal care is an important factor in the prevention of birth defects and the prevention of prematurity, the most common causes of infant death and disability. Babies born to women with no prenatal care or late prenatal care are nearly twice as likely to [be] low birthweight or very low birthweight as infants born to women who received early prenatal care.''

Unfortunately, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, New Mexico ranked worst in the Nation in the percentage of mothers receiving late or no prenatal care last year. The result is often quite costly--both in terms of the health of the mother and newborn but also in terms of the long-term expenses since the result can be chronic, lifelong health problems.

In fact, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, ``four of the top 10 most expensive conditions in the hospital are related to care of infants with complications (respiratory distress, prematurity, heart defects, and lack of oxygen).'' As a result, in addition to reduced infant mortality and morbidity, the provision to expand coverage to pregnant women can be cost effective.

The ``Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act'' also eliminates the unintended federal policy through CHIP that covers pregnant women only through the age of 18 and cuts off that coverage once the women turn 19 years of age. Certainly, everybody can agree that the government should not be telling women that they are more likely to receive prenatal care coverage only if they become pregnant as a teenager.

This bipartisan legislation has previously received or has added endorsements from the following organizations: the March of Dimes, The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the What to Expect Foundation, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the National Association of Community Health Centers, the American Hospital Association, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, the Federation of American Health Systems, the National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, Premier, Catholic Health Association, Catholic Charities USA, Family Voices, the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, the National Health Law Program, the National Association of Social Workers, Every Child By Two, the United Cerebral Palsy Associations, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and Families USA.

This legislation is a reintroduction of a bill that was introduced in 2001. Throughout that year, the Administration made numerous statements in support of the passage of this type of legislation, but unfortunately, reversed course in October 2002 after publishing a regulation allowing states to redefine a ``child'' as an ``unborn child'' and to provide prenatal care through CHIP in that manner. In a letter to Senator Nickles dated October 8, 2002, Secretary Thompson argued, ``I believe the regulation is a more effective and comprehensive solution to this issue.''

While a number of senators strongly disagreed with Secretary Thompson's assertion and sent him letters to that effect on October 10, 2002, and on October 23, 2002, we felt it was important to get the testimony of our Nation's medical experts on the health and well-being of both pregnant women and newborns. We called for a hearing in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on October 24, 2002. Witnesses included representatives from the March of Dimes, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the What to Expect Foundation. They were asked to compare the regulation to the legislation and I will let their testimony speak for itself.

Dr. Nancy Green testified on behalf of the March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation. She said:

We support giving states the flexibility they need to cover

income-eligible pregnant women age 19 and older, and to

automatically enroll infants born to SCHIP-eligible mothers.

By establishing a uniform eligibility threshold for coverage

for pregnant women and infants, states will be able to

improve maternal health, eliminate waiting periods for

infants and streamline administration of publicly supported

health programs. Currently, according to the Department of

Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid

Services and the National Governors' Association, 36 states

and the District of Columbia have income eligibility

thresholds that are more restrictive for women than for their

newborns. Encouraging states to eliminate this disparity by

allowing them to establish a uniform eligibility threshold

for pregnant women and their infants should be a national

policy priority.

Dr. Green adds:

Specifically, we are deeply concerned that final regulation

fails to provide to the mother the standard scope of

maternity care services recommended by the American College

of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American

Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). Of particular concern, the

regulation explicitly states that postpartum care is not

covered and, therefore, federal reimbursement will not be

available for these services. In addition, because of the

contentious collateral issues raised by this regulation

groups like the March of Dimes will find it even more

difficult to work in the states to generate support for

legislation to extend coverage to uninsured pregnant women.

Dr. Laura Riley testified on behalf of ACOG. In her testimony, she stated:

ACOG is very concerned that mothers will not have access to

postpartum services under the regulation. The rule clearly

states that ``. . . care after delivery, such as postpartum

services could not be covered as part of the Title XXI State

Plan . . . because they are not services for an eligible

child.''

On the importance of postpartum care, Dr. Riley adds:

When new mothers develop postpartum complications, quick

access to their physicians is absolutely critical. Postpartum

care is especially important for women who have preexisting

medical conditions, and for those whose medical conditions

were induced by their pregnancies, such as gestational

diabetes or hypertension, and for whom it is necessary to

ensure that their conditions are stabilized and treated.

As a result, Dr. Riley concludes:

Limiting coverage to the fetus instead of the mother omits

a critical component of postpartum care that physicians

regard as essential for the health of the mother and the

child. Covering the fetus as opposed to the mother also

raises questions of whether certain services will be

available during pregnancy and labor if the condition is one

that more directly affects the woman. The best way to address

this coverage issue is to pass S. 724, supported by Senators

Bond, Bingaman and Lincoln and many others, and which

provides a full range of medical services during and after

pregnancy directly to the pregnant woman.

Dr. Richard Bucciarelli testified on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics. He said:

Recently, the Administration published a final rule

expanding SCHIP cover unborn children. The Academy is

concerned that, as written, this regulation falls dangerously

short of the clinical standards of care outlined in our

guidelines, which describe the importance of covering all

stages of a birth--pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum care.

It is important to note that the regulation subtracts the time that an ``unborn child'' is covered from the period of continuously eligibility after birth. Consequently, children would be denied insurance coverage at very critical points during the first full year of life. As such, Dr. Bucciarelli expressed support for the legislation over the regulation because it, in his words:

. . . takes an important step to decrease the number of

uninsured children by providing 12 months of continuous

eligibility for those children born. . . . This legislation

ensures that children born to women enrolled in Medicaid or

SCHIP are immediately enrolled in the program for which they

are eligible. Additionally, this provision prevents newborns

eligible for SCHIP from being subject to enrollment waiting

periods, ensuring that infants receive appropriate health

care in their first year of life.

And finally, Lisa Bernstein testified as Executive Director of The What to Expect Foundation, which takes its name from the bestselling What to Expect pregnancy and parenting series that has helped over 20 million families from pregnancy through their child's toddler years. Ms. Bernstein also supported the legislation as a far superior option over the regulation and make this simple but eloquent point:

. . . only a healthy parent can provide a healthy future

for a healthy child.

The testimony of these experts speak for themselves and I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation as soon as possible.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a series of letters be printed in the Record.

I am pleased to join my colleague from Washington, Senator Patty Murray, as well as my colleague and co-chair of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, Senator John Breaux, in introducing the Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Act of 2003, which will help to advance tremendously important research that holds the promise of a cure for the more than 1 million Americans with type 1 or juvenile diabetes.

As the founder and co-chair of the senate Diabetes Caucus, I have learned a great deal about this serious disease and the difficulties and heartbreak that it causes for so many Americans and their families as they await a cure. Diabetes is a devastating, life-long condition that affects people of every age, race, and nationality. It is the leading cause of kidney failure, blindness in adults, and amputations not related to injury. Moreover, a new study released by the American Diabetes Association last week estimates that diabetes cost the Nation $132 billion last year, and that health care spending for people with diabetes is almost double what it would be if they did not have diabetes.

The burden of diabetes is particularly heavy for children and young adults with type 1, or juvenile diabetes. Juvenile diabetes is the second most common chronic disease affecting children. Moreover, it is one that they never outgrow.

In individuals with juvenile diabetes, the body's immune system attacks the pancreas and destroys the islet cells that produce insulin. While the discovery of insulin was a landmark breakthrough in the treatment of people with diabetes, it is not a cure, and people with juvenile diabetes face the constant threat of developing devastating, life-threatening complications as well as a drastic reduction in their quality of life.

Thankfully, there is good news for people with diabetes. We have seen some tremendous breakthroughs in diabetes research in recent years, and I am convinced that diabetes is a disease that can be cured, and will be cured in the near future.

We were all encouraged by the development of the Edmonton Protocol, an experimental treatment developed at the University of Alberta involving the transplantation of insulin-producing pancreatic islet cells, which has been hailed as the most important advance in diabetes research since the discovery of insulin in 1921. Of the approximately 200 patients who have been treated using variations of the Edmonton Protocol, all have seen a reversal of their life-disabling hypoglycemia, and nearly 80 percent have maintained normal glucose levels without insulin shots for more than 1 year.

Moreover, the side effects associated with this treatment-- which uses more islet cells and a less toxic combination of immunosuppressive drugs than previous, less successful protocols--have been mild and the therapy has been generally well tolerated by most patients.

Unfortunately, long-term use of toxic immunosuppressive drugs, has side effects that make the current treatment inappropriate for use in children. Researcher, however, are working hard to find a way to reduce the transplant recipient's dependence on these drugs so that the procedure will be appropriate for children in the future, and the protocol has been hailed around the world as a remarkable breakthrough and proof that islet transplantation can work. It appears to offer the most immediate chance to achieve a cure for type 1 diabetes, and the research is moving forward rapidly.

New sources of islet cells must be found, however, because, as the science advances and continues to demonstrate promise, the number of islet cell transplants that can be performed will be limited by a serious shortage of pancreases available for islet cell transplantation. There currently are only 2,000 pancreases donated annually, and, of these, only about 500 are available each year for islet cell transplants. Moreover, most patients require islet cells from two pancreases for the procedure to work effectively.

The legislation we are introducing today will increase the supply of pancreases available for these trials and research. Our legislation will direct the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to grant credit to organ procurement organizations OPOs--for the purposes of their certification--for pancreases harvested and used for islet cell transplantation and research.

Currently, CMS collects performance data from each OPO based upon the number of organs procured for transplant relative to the population of the OPO's service area. While CMS considers a pancreas to have been procured for transplantation if it is used for a whole organ transplant, the OPO receives no credit towards its certification if the pancreas is procured and used for islet cell transplantation or research. Our legislation will therefore give the OPOs an incentive to step up their efforts to increase the supply of pancreases donated for this purpose.

In addition, the legislation establishes an inter-agency committee on islet cell transplantation comprised of representatives of all of the Federal agencies with an active role in supporting this research. The many advisory committees on organ transplantation that currently exist are so broad in scope that the issue of islet cell transplantation-- while of great importance to the juvenile diabetes community--does not rise to the level of consideration when included with broader issues associated with organ donation, such as organ allocation policy and financial barriers to transplantation. We believe that a more focused effort in the area of islet cell transplantation is clearly warrented since the research is moving forward at such a rapid pace and with such remarkable results.

To help us collect the data necessary to move islet cell transplantation from an experimental procedure to a standard therapy covered by insurance, our legislation directs the Institute of Medicine to conduct a study on the impact of islet cell transplantation on the health-related quality of life outcomes for individuals with juvenile diabetes, as well as the cost-effectiveness of the treatment.

Diabetes is the most common cause of kidney failure, accounting for 40 percent of new cases, and a significant percentage of individuals with type 1 diabetes will experience kidney failure and become Medicare-eligible before they are age 65. Medicare currently covers both kidney transplants and simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants for these individuals. To help Medicare decide whether it should cover pancreatic islet cell transplants, our legislation authorizes a demonstration project to test the efficacy of simultaneous islet-kidney transplants

and islet transplants following a kidney transplant for individuals with type 1 diabetes who are eligible for Medicare because they have end stage renal disease ESRD.

Islet cell transplantation offers real hope for people with diabetes. Our legislation, which is strongly supported by the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation JDRF, addresses some of the specific obstacles to moving this research forward as rapidly as possible, and I urge all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Mr. President, from Pickerel Pond to Lake Auburn, from Sebago Lake to Bryant Pond, lakes and ponds in Maine are under attack. Aquatic invasive species threaten Maine's drinking water system, recreation, wildlife habitat, lakefront real estate, and fisheries. Plants, such as variable leaf milfoil, are crowding out native species. Invasive Asian shore crabs are taking over southern New England's tidal pools, and just last year began their advance into Maine--to the potential detriment of Maine's lobster and clam industries.

Maine and many other States are attempting to fight back against these invasions. Unfortunately, their efforts have frequently been of limited success. As with national security, protecting the integrity of our lakes, streams, and coastlines from invading species cannot be accomplished by individual States alone. We need a uniform, nationwide approach to deal effectively with invasive species.

Today I am pleased to join Senator Levin in introducing the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003. This bill would create the most comprehensive nationwide approach to date for combating alien species that invade our shores.

The stakes are high when invasive species are unintentionally introduced into our Nation's waters. They endanger ecosystems, reduce biodiversity, and threaten native species. They disrupt people's lives and livelihoods by lowering property values, impairing commercial fishing and aquaculture, degrading recreational experiences, and damaging public water supplies.

In the 1950s, European green crabs swarmed the Maine coast and literally ate the bottom out of Maine's soft-shell clam industry by the 1980s. Many clam diggers were forced to go after other fisheries or find new vocations. In just one decade, this invader reduced the number of clam diggers in Maine from nearly 5,000 in the 1940s to fewer than 1500 in the 1950s. European green crabs currently cost an estimated $44 million a year in damage and control efforts in the United States.

Past invasions forewarn of the long-term consequences to our environment and communities unless we take steps to prevent new invasions. It is too late

to stop European green crabs from taking hold on the east coast, but we still have the opportunity to prevent many other species from taking hold in Maine and the United States.

Three months ago, in the town of Limerick, ME, one of North America's most aggressive invasive species--hydrilla--was found in Pickeral Pond. Hydrilla can quickly dominate its new ecosystem--already hydrilla covers 60 percent of the bottom of Pickerel Pond from the shoreline out to 6 feet deep. Never before detected in Maine, this stubborn and fast- growing aquatic plant threatens Pickerel Pond's recreational use for swimmers and boaters, and could spread to nearby lakes and ponds. Unfortunately, eradication of hydrilla is nearly impossible, so we must now work to prevent further infestation in the State.

The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003 is the most comprehensive effort ever to address the threat of invasive species. By authorizing $836 million over 6 years, this legislation would open numerous new fronts in our war against invasive species. The bill directs the Coast Guard to develop regulations that will end the easy cruise of invasive species into U.S. waters through the ballast water of international ships, and would provide the Coast Guard with $6 million per year to develop and implement these regulations.

The bill also would provide $30 million per year for a grant program to assist State efforts to prevent the spread of invasive species. It would provide $12 million per year for the Army Corps of Engineers and Fish and Wildlife Service to contain and control invasive species. Finally, the Levin-Collins bill would authorize $30 million annually for research, education, and outreach.

The most effective means of stopping invading species is to attack them before they attack us. We need an early alert, rapid response system to combat invading species before they have a chance to take hold. For the first time, this bill would establish a national monitoring network to detect newly introduced species, while providing $25 million to the Secretary of the Interior to create a rapid response fund to help States and regions respond quickly once invasive species have been detected. This bill is our best effort at preventing the next wave of invasive species from taking hold and decimating industries and destroying waterways in Maine and throughout the country.

One of the leading pathways for the introduction of aquatic organisms to U.S. waters from abroad is through transoceanic vessels. Commercial vessels fill and release ballast tanks with seawater as a means of stabilization. The ballast water contains live organisms from plankton to adult fish that are transported and released through this pathway. The bill we are introducing today would establish a framework to prevent the introduction of aquatic invasive species by ships.

Currently, the U.S. is in negotiations with the international community on the development and implementation of an international program for preventing the unintentional introduction and spread of non-indigenous species through ballast water. I commend American negotiators for working with the international community to address this global problem. This legislation offers a strong framework that the U.S. should use as a model in negotiating this important international convention. The U.S. Government must ensure that the international convention will be at least as protective as the legislation we are introducing today. The United States must take the most protective action possible to protect our waters, ecosystems, and industries from destructive invasive species before it is too late.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation similar to measures I have introduced in previous Congresses that will help protect our Nation's natural resources and improve the visitor experience in our national parks and other public lands. The Transit in Parks Act, or ``TRIP,'' establishes a new Federal transit grant initiative to support the development of alternative transportation services for our national parks, wildlife refuges, Federal recreational areas, and other public lands. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Akaka, Alexander, Baucus, Corzine, Dodd, Graham, Kennedy, Lautenberg, Levin, Reid, Schumer, Stabenow, and Wyden, who are cosponsors of this legislation.

I want to underscore again today some of the principal arguments I have made in past years as to why this legislation is urgently needed. Memorial Day weekend, the opening of the summer travel season, is just weeks away. Millions of visitors will soon head to our national parks to enjoy the incredible natural heritage with which our Nation was endowed. But too many of them will spend hours looking for parking, or staring at the bumper of the car in front of them.

Clearly, the world has changed significantly since the national parks first opened in the second half of the nineteenth century, when visitors arrived by stagecoach along dirt roads. At that time, travel through parklands, such as Yosemite or Yellowstone, was long, difficult, and costly. Not many people could afford or endure such a trip. The introduction of the automobile gave every American greater mobility and freedom, which included the freedom to travel and see some of our Nation's great natural wonders. Early in this century, landscape architects from the National Park Service and highway engineers from the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads collaborated to produce many feats of road engineering that opened the national park lands to millions of Americans.

Yet greater mobility and easier access now threaten the very environments that the National Park Service is mandated to protect. The ongoing tension between preservation and access has always been a challenge for our national park system. Today, record numbers of visitors and cars have resulted in increasing damage to our parks. The Grand Canyon alone has almost five million visitors a year. As many as 6,000 vehicles arrive in a single summer day. They compete for 2,400 parking spaces. Between 32,000 and 35,000 tour buses go to the park each year. During the peak summer season, the entrance route becomes a giant parking lot.

In 1975, the total number of visitors to America's national parks was 190 million. By 2002, that number had risen to 277 million annual visitors--almost equal to one visit by every man, woman, and child in this country. This dramatic increase in visitation has created an overwhelming demand on these areas, resulting in severe traffic congestion, visitor restrictions, and in some instances vacationers being shut out of the parks altogether. The environmental damage at the Grand Canyon is visible at many other parks: Yosemite, which has more than four million visitors a year; Yellowstone, which has more than three million visitors a year and experiences such severe traffic congestion that access has to be restricted; Zion; Acadia; Bryce; and many others. We need to solve these problems now or risk permanent harm to our nation's natural, cultural, and historical heritage.

Visitor access to the parks is vital not only to the parks themselves, but to the economic health of their gateway communities. For example, visitors to Yosemite infuse $3 billion a year into the local economy of the surrounding area. At Yellowstone, tourists spend $725 million annually in adjacent communities. Wildlife-related tourism generates an estimated $60 billion a year nationwide. If the parks are forced to close their gates to visitors due to congestion, the economic vitality of the surrounding region would be jeopardized.

The challenge for park management has always been twofold: to conserve and protect the nation's natural, historical, and cultural resources, while at the same time ensuring visitor access and enjoyment of these sensitive environments. Until now, the principal transportation systems that the Federal Government has developed to provide access into our national parks are roads, primarily for private automobile access. The TRIP legislation recognizes that we need to do more than simply

build roads; we must invest in alternative transportation solutions before our national parks are damaged beyond repair.

In developing solutions to the parks' transportation needs, this legislation builds upon the 1997 Memorandum of Understanding between Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater and Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, in which the two Departments agreed to work together to address transportation and resource management needs in and around national parks. The findings in the MOU are especially revealing: Congestion in and approaching many National Parks is causing lengthy traffic delays and backups that substantially detract from the visitor experience. Visitors find that many of the National Parks contain significant noise and air pollution, and traffic congestion similar to that found on the city streets they left behind.

In many National Park units, the capacity of parking facilities at interpretive or scenic areas is well below demand. As a result, visitors park along roadsides, damaging park resources and subjecting people to hazardous safety conditions as they walk near busy roads to access visitor use areas.

On occasion, National Park units must close their gates during high visitation periods and turn away the public because the existing infrastructure and transportation systems are at, or beyond, the capacity for which they were designed.

In addition, the TRIP legislation is designed to implement the recommendations from a comprehensive study of alternative transportation needs in public lands that I was able to include in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, as section 3039. The Federal Lands Alternative Transportation Systems Study confirmed what those of us who have visited our national parks already know: there is a significant and well-documented need for alternative transportation solutions in the national parks to prevent lasting damage to these incomparable natural treasures.

The study examined over two hundred sites, and identified needs for alternative transportation services at two-thirds of those sites. The study found that implementation of such services can help achieve a number of desirable outcomes: ``Relieve traffic congestion and parking shortages; enhance visitor mobility and accessibility; preserve sensitive natural, cultural, and historic resources; provide improved interpretation, education and visitor information services; reduce pollution; and improve economic development opportunities for gateway communities.''

In fact, the study concluded that ``the provision of transit in federally-managed lands can have national economic implications as well as significant economic benefits for local areas surrounding the sites.'' The study determined that funding transit needs would support thousands of jobs around the country, while also providing a direct benefit to the economy of gateway communities by ``expand[ing] the number of visits to the site and expand[ing] the amount of visitor spending in the surrounding communities.''

The study identified ``lack of a dedicated funding source for developing, implementing, and operating and maintaining transit systems'' as a key barrier to implementation of alternative transportation in and around federally-managed lands. The Transit in Parks Act will go far toward helping parks and their gateway communities overcome this barrier. This new Federal transit grant program will provide funding to the Federal land management agencies that manage the 388 various sites within the National Park System, the National Wildlife Refuges, Federal recreational areas, and other public lands, including National Forest System lands, and to their State and local partners.

The bill's objectives are to develop new and expanded transit services throughout the national parks and other public lands to conserve and protect fragile natural, cultural, and historical resources and wildlife habitats, to prevent or mitigate adverse impact on those resources and habitats, and to reduce pollution and congestion, while at the same time facilitating appropriate visitor access and improving the visitor experience. The program will provide capital funds for transit projects, including rail or clean fuel bus projects, joint development activities, pedestrian and bike paths, or park waterway access, within or adjacent to national parks and other public lands. The Secretary of Transportation may make funds available for operations as well. The bill authorizes $90 million for this new program for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2009, consistent with the level of need identified in the study. It is anticipated that other resources--both public and private--will be available to augment these amounts.

The bill formalizes the cooperative arrangement in the 1997 MOU between the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of the Interior to exchange technical assistance and to develop procedures relating to the planning, selection and funding of transit projects in national park lands. The bill further provides funds for planning, research, and technical assistance that can supplement other financial resources available to the Federal land management agencies. The projects eligible for funding would be developed through the transportation planning process and prioritized for funding by the Secretary of the Interior in consultation and cooperation with the Secretary of Transportation. It is anticipated that the Secretary of the Interior would select projects that are diverse in location and size. While major national parks such as the Grand Canyon or Yellowstone are clearly appropriate candidates for significant transit projects under this section, there are numerous small urban and rural Federal park lands that can benefit enormously from small projects, such as bike paths or improved connections with an urban or regional public transit system. No single project will receive more than 12 percent of the total amount available in any given year. This ensures a diversity of projects selected for assistance.

In addition, I firmly believe that this program will create new opportunities for the Federal land management agencies to partner with local transit agencies in gateway communities adjacent to the parks, both through the TEA-21 planning process and in developing integrated transportation systems. This will spur new economic development within these communities, as they develop transportation centers for park visitors to connect to transit links into the national parks and other public lands.

The ongoing tension between preservation and access has always been a challenge for the National Park Service. Today, that challenge has new dimensions, with overcrowding, pollution, congestion, and resource degradation increasing at many of our national parks. This legislation--the Transit in Parks Act--will give our Federal land management agencies important new tools to improve both preservation and access. Just as we have found in metropolitan areas, transit is essential to moving large numbers of people in our national parks-- quickly, efficiently, at low cost, and without adverse impact. At the same time, transit can enhance the economic development potential of our gateway communities.

As we begin a new millennium, I cannot think of a more worthy endeavor to help our environment and preserve our national parks, wildlife refuges, and Federal recreational areas than by encouraging alternative transportation in these areas. My bill is strongly supported by the National Parks Conservation Association, Environmental Defense, the American Public Transportation Association, Community Transportation Association, Amalgamated Transit Union, Surface Transportation Policy Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, Friends of the Earth, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, America Bikes and others, and I ask unanimous consent that the bill, a section-by-section analysis, and letters of support be printed in the Record, along with the USA Today article, ``Save Parks: Park Cars.''

I believe that we have a clear choice before us: we can turn paradise into a parking lot--or we can invest in alternatives. I urge my colleagues to support the Transit in Parks Act to ensure that our Nation's natural treasures will be preserved for many generations to come.

Mr. President, today, my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins and I are very pleased to introduce the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003. This bill, which reauthorizes the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act, takes a comprehensive approach towards addressing aquatic nuisance species to protect the Nation's waters. This bill deals with the prevention of new introductions, the screening of new aquatic organisms coming into the country, the rapid response to new invasions, and the research to implement the provisions of this bill.

The problem of invasive species is a very real one. Over the past 450 years, during colonization and development of this country, more than 6,500 nonindigenous invasive species have been introduced into the United States and have become established, self-sustaining populations. These species--from microorganisms to mollusks, from pathogens to plants, from insects to fish to animals--typically encounter few, if any, natural enemies in their new environments and wreak havoc on native species. Aquatic nuisance species threaten biodiversity nationwide, especially in the Great Lakes.

Some of my colleagues may remember that back in the late eighties, the problem of aquatic nuisance species was first raised after the zebra mussel was released into the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes still have zebra mussels, and now, 20 States are fighting to control them. Zebra mussels were carried over from the Mediterranean to the Great Lakes in the ballast tanks of ships. The leading pathway for aquatic invasive species is maritime commerce. Most invasive species are contained in the water that ships use for ballast. Aquatic invaders such as the zebra mussel and round goby were introduced into the Great Lakes when ships, often from halfway around the world, pulled into port and discharged their ballast water. Aquatic invaders can also attach themselves to ships' hulls and anchor chains.

Because of the impact that the zebra mussel had in the Great Lakes, Congress passed legislation in 1990 and 1996 that have reduced, but not eliminated, the threat of new invasions by requiring ballast water management for ships entering the Great Lakes. Today, there is a mandatory ballast water management program in the Great Lakes. The current law requires that ships entering the Great Lakes must exchange their ballast water, seal their ballast tanks or use alternative treatment that is ``as effective as ballast water exchange.'' Unfortunately, the effectiveness of ballast water exchange has been left undefined. Consequently, alternative treatments have not been fully developed and widely tested on ships because the developers of ballast technology do not know what standard

they are trying to achieve. This obstacle is serious because ultimately, only onboard ballast water treatment will adequately reduce the threat of new aquatic nuisance species being introduced through ballast water.

Our bill rectifies this problem. First, this bill establishes deadlines for national interim and final standards for ballast water management. This way, technology vendors and the maritime industry know when to expect clear requirements. Second, our bill establishes what the phrase ``as effective as ballast water exchange'' means for the purposes of the interim period. Research has shown that ballast water exchange has highly variable effectiveness rates. This bill takes the maximum effectiveness that ballast water exchange could have using the safest approach--a 95-percent reduction of near coastal plankton and establishes it as the floor for treatment effectiveness which is a 95 percent kill or removal of live organisms. Within 18 months of the bill's passage, the Coast Guard is required to issue regulations implementing an interim ballast water standard that would require ships that enter any U.S. port after operating outside the Exclusive Economic Zone of 200 miles to either use ballast water treatment technology that meets the standard, retain the ship's ballast water, or exchange the ship's ballast water in the high seas. Ships operating in coastal waters would not be required to manage ballast water during the interim standard.

A 95-percent reduction of organisms will be the interim standard used for treatment technology until the EPA, with the concurrence of the Coast Guard, promulgates the final standard. This interim standard is not intended to be implemented for the long run, and it is not perfect. However, a final standard is difficult to set today or in the near future because of the limited research that has been conducted on how clean or sterile ballast water discharge should be, what is the best expression of a standard, and what is technologically achievable. Rather than wait many more years before taking action to stop new introductions, I believe that an imperfect but clear and achievable interim standard for treatment technology is the right approach. This interim standard will lead to the use of ballast treatments that are more protective of our waters than the default method of ballast water exchange provides, and it can be implemented in the very near future. Further, the bill provides the Coast Guard with the flexibility to promulgate the interim standard using a size-based standard or by whatever parameters the Coast Guard determines appropriate.

I understand that ballast water technologies are being researched and are ready to be tested onboard ships. These technologies include ultraviolet lights, filters, chemicals, deoxygenation, and several others. Each of these technologies has a different pricetag attached to it. It is not my intention to overburden the maritime industry with an expensive requirement to install technology. In fact, the legislation states that the final ballast water technology standard must be based on ``best available technology economically achievable.'' That means that the EPA must consider what technology is available, and if there is not economically achievable technology available to a class of vessels, then the standard will not require ballast technology for that class of vessels, subject to review every 3 years. I do not believe this will be the case, however, because the approach creates a clear incentive for treatment vendors to develop affordable equipment for the market. Since ballast technology will be always evolving, it is important that the EPA review and revise the standard so that it reflects what is the best technology currently available and whether it is economically achievable. Shipowners cannot be expected to upgrade their equipment upon every few years as technology develops, however, so the law provides an approval period of at least 10 years.

There are other important provisions of the bill as well. The bill requires the Army Corps of Engineers to construct and operate the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal project which includes the construction of a second dispersal barrier to keep species like the Asian carp from migrating up the Mississippi through the canal into the Great Lakes. Equally important, this barrier will prevent the migration of invasive species in the Great Lakes from proceeding into the Mississippi system. The bill establishes an experimental ballast treatment approval process to take effect immediately so that the treatment technology industry can begin full-scale experimental installations of treatments on ships. The bill authorizes additional funding for better coordinated research to find effective means of combating invasive species. It would help Federal, State, and regional authorities guard against future invasions by developing early detection monitoring and rapid response plans. And it provides funding for outreach and education programs to inform the public and marina owners about the dangers of inadvertently carrying aquatic invaders on the hulls of recreational boats or dumping bait buckets into the Lakes.

Invasive species threaten the region's biological diversity and are an economic drain. Estimates of the annual economic damage caused nationwide by invasive species go as high as $137 billion. Because of the system of canals connecting the Great Lakes to the Mississippi River and the Atlantic Ocean, there are no physical barriers to block the spread of invasive species, making the Great Lakes highly vulnerable. Because of the frequency of ships entering into the Great Lakes, though, our region is often ``ground zero,'' and once an exotic species establishes itself, it is almost impossible to eradicate and sometimes difficult to prevent from moving throughout the nation. Therefore, prevention is the key to controlling new introductions.

All in all, the bill would cost between $160 million and $170 million each year. This is a lot of money, but it is a critical investment. As those of us from the Great Lakes know, the economic damage that invasive species can cause is much greater. However, compared to the $137 billion annual cost of invasive species, the cost of this bill is minimal. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and work to move the bill swiftly through the Senate.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act and the National Invasive Species Council Act. As a Senator representing a Great Lake State, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of both of these bills that are critical to the future of the Great Lakes ecosystem.

In my 36 years of public service, one of my greatest sources of comfort and accomplishment has been my work to help clean up and protect the environment, particularly Lake Erie.

Lake Erie's ecology has come a long way since I was elected to the state legislature in 1966. During that time, Lake Erie formed the northern border of my district and it was known worldwide as a dying lake, suffering from eutrophication. Lake Erie's decline was covered extensively by the media and became an international symbol of pollution and environmental degradation. I remember the British Broadcasting Company even sending a film crew to make a documentary about it. One reason for all the attention is that Lake Erie is a source of drinking water for 11 million people.

Seeing firsthand the effects of pollution on Lake Erie and the surrounding region, I knew we had to do more to protect the environment for our children and grandchildren. As a State legislator, I made a commitment to stop the deterioration of the lake and to wage the ``Second Battle of Lake Erie'' to reclaim and restore Ohio's Great Lake. I have continued this fight throughout my career as County Commissioner, state legislator, Mayor of Cleveland, Governor of Ohio, and United States Senator.

It is comforting to me that 36 years since I started my career in public service, I am still involved, as a member of the United States Senate and our Committee on Environment and Public Works, in the battle to save Lake Erie.

Today in Ohio, we celebrate Lake Erie's improved water quality. It is a habitat to countless species of wildlife, a vital resource to the area's tourism, transportation, and recreation industries, and the main source of drinking water for many Ohioans. Unfortunately, however, there is still a great deal that needs to be done to improve and protect Ohio's greatest natural asset.

Our current enemy is the aquatic invasive species that threaten the health and viability of the Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem. I am worried about these aquatic terrorists in the ballast water that enter the Great Lakes system through boats from all over the world. These species are already wreaking havoc in the lakes and will continue to do so until they are stopped.

Since the 1800s, over 145 invasive species have colonized in the Great Lakes. Since 1990, when legislation to address aquatic nuisance species was first enacted, we have averaged about one new invader each year. Clearly, we have not closed the door to invasive species. I am deeply troubled by the surge in new invasive species in Lake Erie, because once a species establishes itself, there is virtually no way to eliminate it.

As Mayor of Cleveland in the 1980s, I was alarmed about the introduction of zebra mussels into the Great Lakes and conducted the first national meeting to investigate the problem. It is a complicated situation and we are still learning how invasive species like the zebra mussel affect the ecosystem.

In early August, for example, I conducted a field hearing of the Environment and Public Works Committee to examine the increasingly extensive oxygen depletion or anoxia in the central basin of Lake Erie. This phenomenon has been referred to as a ``dead zone.'' Anoxia over the long term could result in massive fish kills, toxic algae blooms, and bad-tasting or bad-smelling water.

Anoxia is usually the result of decaying algae blooms which consume oxygen at the bottom of the lake. In the past, excessive phosphorus loading from point sources such as municipal sewage treatment plants were greatly responsible for algae blooms. Since 1965, the level of phosphorus entering the Lake has been reduced by about 50 percent. These reductions have resulted in smaller quantities of algae and more oxygen into the system.

In recent years, overall phosphorus levels in the Lake have been increasing, but the amount of phosphorus entering it has not. Scientists are unable to account for the increased levels of phosphorus in the Lake. One hypothesis is the influence of two aquatic nuisance species the zebra and quagga mussels. Although their influence is not well understood, they may be altering the way phosphorus cycles through the system.

Another way zebra mussels could be responsible for oxygen depletion in Lake Erie is due to their ability to filter and clear vast quantities of lake water. Clearer water allows light to penetrate deeper into the Lake, encouraging additional organic growth on the bottom. When this organic material decays, it consumes oxygen.

The possible link between Lake Erie's ``dead zone'' problem and aquatic nuisance species like the zebra mussel should underscore the importance of our legislation, the National Aquatic Nuisance Species Act. Over the last 30 years, we have made remarkable progress in improving water quality and restoring the natural resources of our Nation's aquatic areas, and we need to prevent any backsliding on this progress.

While aquatic invasive species are a particular problem because they readily spread through interconnected waterways and are difficult to treat safely, they represent only one piece of the problem. Both terrestrial and aquatic invasive species cause significant economic and ecological damage throughout North America. Recent estimates state that invasive species cost the U.S. at least $138 billion per year and that 42 percent of the species on the Threatened and Endangered Lists are at risk primarily due to invasive species.

In 1999, President Clinton issued an Executive Order creating the National Invasive Species Council to develop a national management plan for invasive species and bring together the federal agencies responsible for managing them. This was a promising action that has never been fully implemented. The National Invasive Species Management Plan was issued in 2001, but agencies with responsibilities under the plan have been slow to complete activities by the established due dates and the agencies do not always act in a coordinated manner.

The General Accounting Office released a report in October 2002 that claimed that implementing the Management Plan was being hampered by the lack of a congressional mandate for the Council. It is disturbing to me that this Council exists but is not making substantial progress. Make no mistake about it; these species are not waiting for the Federal Government to get all of its ducks in a row. They are continuing to take over the waters and lands of the U.S.

The National Invasive Species Council Act will fix this problem by legislatively establishing the Council. Because timing is so important, I urge my colleagues to act quickly on both of these bills to ensure that the National Invasive Species Management Plan is updated and fully implemented.

We must act quickly to strengthen the oversight of efforts preventing invasive species from wreaking havoc on the Great Lakes' aquatic habitat and throughout the U.S.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to move these bills forward. I understand that both bills will be referred to the Environment and Public Works Committee today, and I look forward to working with Chairman Inhofe to move them expeditiously through committee.