Noxious Weed Control and Eradication Act of 2004

Mr. President, I rise today to join my good friend, the senior Senator from Utah, in introducing the PROTECT Act, a bill providing important new tools to fight child pornography. This bill is identical to the measure that Senator Hatch and I worked so hard on in the last Congress. The bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent in the 107th Congress and I am proud to be the lead cosponsor of this legislation for the 108th Congress as well, but unfortunately, it did not become law last year because, even though the Senate was still meeting, considering and passing legislation, the House of Representatives had adjourned. The House would not return to take action on this measure that had passed the Senate unanimously or to work out our differences.

I hope that the full Senate will quickly pass this bill again, and I strongly urge the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives to take this second opportunity to pass this important legislation. I also urge the Administration to support this bipartisan measure, instead of using this debate as an opportunity to push for legislation that strives to make an ideological statement, but which may not withstand Constitutional scrutiny.

I want to take a moment to speak about the history of this important bill and the effort that it took to get to this point. In May of 2002, I came to the Senate floor and joined Senator Hatch in introducing S. 2520, the PROTECT Act, after the Supreme Court's decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, (``Free Speech''). Although there were some others who raised constitutional concerns about specific provisions in that bill, I believed that unlike legislative language proposed by the Administration in the last Congress, it was a good faith effort to work within the First Amendment.

Everyone in the Senate agrees that we should do all we can to protect our children from being victimized by child pornography. That would be an easy debate and vote. The more difficult thing is to write a law that will both do that and will stick. In 1996, when we passed the Child Pornography Prevention Act, (``CPPA''), many warned us that certain provisions of that Act violated the First Amendment. The Supreme Court's recent decision in Free Speech has proven them correct.

We should not sit by and do nothing. It is important that we respond to the Supreme Court decision. It is just as important, however, that we avoid repeating our past mistakes. Unlike the 1996 CPPA, this time we should respond with a law that passes constitutional muster. Our children deserve more than a press conference on this issue. They deserve a law that will last.

It is important that we do all we can to end the victimization of real children by child pornographers, but it is also important that we pass a law that will withstand First Amendment scrutiny. We need a law with real teeth, not one with false teeth.

After joining Senator Hatch in introducing the PROTECT Act in the 107th Congress, as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee I convened a hearing on October 2, 2002 on the legislation. We heard from the Administration, from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, (``NCMEC''), and from experts who came and told us that our bill, as introduced, would pass constitutional muster, but the House- passed bill supported by the Administration would not.

I then placed S. 2520 on the Judiciary Committee's calendar for the October 8, 2002, business meeting. I continued to work with Senator Hatch to improve the bill so that it could be quickly enacted. Senator Hatch circulated a Hatch-Leahy proposed Judiciary Committee substitute that improved the bill before our October 8 business meeting. Unfortunately the Judiciary Committee was unable to consider it because of procedural maneuvering by my colleagues that had nothing to do with this important legislation, including the refusal of Committee members on the other side of the aisle to consider any pending legislation on the Committee's agenda.

I still wanted to get this bill done. That is why, for a full week in October, I worked to clear and have the full Senate pass a substitute to S. 2520 that tracked the Hatch-Leahy proposed committee substitute in nearly every area. Indeed, the substitute I offered even adopted parts of the House bill which would help the NCMEC work with local and state law enforcement on these cases. Twice, I spoke on the Senate floor imploring that we approve such legislation. As I stated then, every single Democratic Senator cleared that measure. I then urged Republicans to work on their side of the aisle to clear this measure-- so similar to the joint Hatch-Leahy substitute--so that we could swiftly enact a law that would pass constitutional muster. Unfortunately, they did not. Facing

the recess before the mid-term elections, we were stymied again.

Even after the last election, however, during our lame duck session, I continued to work with Senator Hatch to pass this legislation through the Senate. As I had stated I would do prior to the election, I called a meeting of the Judiciary Committee on November 14, 2002. In the last meeting of the Judiciary Committee under my Chairmanship in the 107th Congress, I placed S. 2520, the Hatch-Leahy PROTECT Act, on the agenda yet again. At that meeting the Judiciary Committee amended and approved this legislation. We agreed on a substitute and to improvements in the victim shield provision that I authored.

Although I did not agree with two of Senator Hatch's amendments, because I thought that they risked having the bill declared unconstitutional, I nevertheless called both for the Committee to approve the bill and voted for the bill in its amended form. I will discuss these provisions later.

I then sought, that same day, to gain the unanimous consent of the full Senate to pass S. 2520 as reported by the Judiciary Committee, and I worked with Senator Hatch to clear the bill on both sides of the aisle. I am pleased that the Senate did pass S. 2520 by unanimous consent. I want to thank Senator Hatch for all he did to help clear the bill for passage in the 107th Congress.

Unfortunately, the House failed to act on this measure last year and the Administration decided not to push for passage. If they had, we could have passed a bill, sent it to the President, and already had a new law on the books.

Instead, I am here again with Senator Hatch asking yet again that this bill be enacted. I am glad to have been able to work hand in hand with Senator Hatch on the PROTECT Act because it is a bill that gives prosecutors and investigators the tools they need to combat child pornography. The Hatch-Leahy PROTECT Act strives to be a serious response to a serious problem.

The provisions of the Hatch-Leahy bill, as we introduce it, are bipartisan and good faith efforts to protect both our children and to honor the Constitution. At our hearing last October, Constitutional and criminal law scholars--one of whom was the same person who warned us last time that the CPPA would be struck down--stated that the PROTECT Act as introduced in the last Congress could withstand Constitutional scrutiny, although there were parts that were very close to the line. Let me outline some of the bill's important provisions:

I would like to emphasize some key provisions of the PROTECT Act. Section 3 of the bill creates two new crimes aimed at people who distribute child pornography and those who use such material to entice children to do illegal acts. Each of these new crimes carry a 15 year maximum prison sentence for a first offense and double that term for repeat offenders. First, the bill criminalizes the pandering of child pornography, creating a new crime to respond to the Supreme Court's recent ruling striking down the CPPA's definition of pandering. This provision is narrower than the old ``pandering'' definition for two reasons, both of which respond to specific Court criticisms: First, the new crime only applies to the people who actually pander the child pornography or solicit it, not to all those who possess the material ``downstream.''

The bill also contains a directive to the Sentencing Commission which asks them to distinguish between those who pander or distribute such material who are more culpable than those who solicit the material. Second, the pandering in this provision must be linked to ``obscene'' material, which is totally unprotected speech under Miller. Thus, while I would have liked for the provision to be crafted more narrowly so that ``purported'' material was not included, and I acknowledge that this provision may well be challenged on some of the same grounds as the prior CPPA provision, it responds to some specific concerns raised by the Supreme Court and is significantly narrower than the CPPA's definition of pandering.

Second, the bill creates a new crime to take direct aim at one of the chief evils of child pornography: namely, its use by sexual predators to entice minors either to engage in sexual activity or the production of more child pornography. This was one of the compelling arguments made by the government before the Supreme Court in support of the CPPA, but the Court rejected that argument as an insufficient basis to ban the production, distribution or possession of ``virtual'' child pornography. This bill addresses that same harm in a more targeted manner. It creates a new felony, which applies to both actual and virtual child pornography, for people who use such material to entice minors to participate in illegal activity. This will provide prosecutors a potent new tool to put away those who prey upon children using such pornography--whether the child pornography is virtual or not.

Next, this bill attempts to revamp the existing affirmative defense in child pornography cases both in response to criticisms of the Supreme Court and so that the defense does not erect unfair hurdles to the prosecution of cases involving real children. Responding directly to criticisms of the Court, the new affirmative defense applies equally to those who are charged with possessing child pornography and to those who actually produce it, a change from current law. It also allows, again responding to specific Supreme Court criticisms, for a defense that no actual children were used in the production of the child pornography--i.e. that it was made using computers. At the same time, this provision protects prosecutors from unfair surprise in the use of this affirmative defense by requiring that a defendant give advance notice of his intent to assert it, just as defendants are currently required to give if they plan to assert an alibi or insanity defense. As a former prosecutor I suggested this provision because it effects the real way that these important trials are conducted. With the provision, the government can marshal the expert testimony that may be needed to rebut this ``virtual porn'' defense in cases where real children were victimized.

This improved affirmative defense provides important support for the constitutionality of much of this bill after the Free Speech decision. Even Justice Thomas specifically wrote that it would be a key factor for him. This is one reason for making the defense applicable to all non-obscene, child pornography, as defined in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2256. In the bill's current form, however, the affirmative defense is not available in one of the new proposed classes of virtual child pornography, which would be found at 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2256(8)(D). This omission may render that provision unconstitutional under the First Amendment, and I hope that, as the legislative process continues, we can work with constitutional experts to improve the bill in this and other ways. I do not want to be here again in five years, after yet another Supreme Court decision striking this law down.

The bill also provides needed assistance to prosecutors in rebutting the virtual porn defense by removing a restriction on the use of records of performers portrayed in certain sexually explicit conduct that are required to be maintained under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2257, and expanding such records to cover computer images. These records, which will be helpful in proving that the material in question is not ``virtual'' child pornography, may be used in federal child pornography and obscenity prosecutions under this Act. The purpose of this provision is to protect real children from exploitation. It is important that prosecutors have access to this information in both child pornography and obscenity prosecutions, since the Supreme Court's recent decision has had the effect of narrowing the child pornography laws, making more likely that the general obscenity statutes will be important tools in protecting children from exploitation. In addition, the Act raises the penalties for not keeping accurate records, further deterring the exploitation of minors and enhancing the reliability of the records.

Next, this bill contains several provisions altering the definition of ``child pornography'' in response to the Free Speech case. One approach would have been simply to add an ``obscenity'' requirement to the child pornography definitions. Outlawing all obscene child pornography real and virtual; minor and `youthful-adult;' simulated and

real--would clearly pass a constitutional challenge because obscene speech enjoys no protection at all. Under the Miller obscenity test, such material (1) ``appeals to the prurient interest,'' (2) is utterly ``offensive'' in any ``community,'' and (3) has absolutely no ``literary, artistic or scientific value.''

Some new provisions of this bill do take this ``obscenity'' approach, like the new Sec. 2256(8)(B). Other provisions, however, take a different approach. Specifically, the CPPA's definition of ``identifiable minor'' has been modified in the bill to include a prong for persons who are ``virtually indistinguishable from an actual minor.'' This adopts language from Justice O'Connor's concurrence in the Free Speech case. Thus, while this language is defensible, I predict that this provision will be the center of much constitutional debate. Although I will explain in more detail later, these new definitional provisions risk crossing the constitutional line.

It does not do America's children any good to write a law that might get struck down by our courts in order to prove an ideological point. These provisions should be fully debated and examined during the legislative process, and I will speak about them in more detail later.

The bill also contains a variety of other measures designed to increase jail sentences in cases where children are victimized by sexual predators. First, it enhances penalties for repeat offenders of child sex offenses by expanding the predicate crimes which trigger tough, mandatory minimum sentences. Second, the bill requires the U.S. Sentencing Commission to address a disturbing disparity in the current Sentencing Guidelines. The current sentences for a person who actually travels across state lines to have sex with a child are not as high as for child pornography. The Commission needs to correct this oversight immediately, so that prosecutors can take these dangerous sexual predators off the street. These are all strong measures designed to protect children and increase prison sentences for child molesters and those who otherwise exploit children.

The Act also has several provisions designed to protect the children who are victims in these horrible cases. Privacy of the children must be paramount. It is important that they not be victimized yet again in the criminal process. This bill provides for the first time ever an explicit shield law that prohibits the name or other non physical identifying information of the child victim, other than the age or approximate age, from being admitted at any child pornography trial. It is also intended that judges will take appropriate steps to ensure that such information as the child's name, address or other identifying information not be publicly disclosed during the pretrial phase of the case or at sentencing. The bill also contains a provision requiring the judge to instruct the jury, upon request of the government, that no inference should be drawn against the United States because of information inadmissible under the new shield law.

The Hatch-Leahy PROTECT Act also amends certain reporting provisions governing child pornography. Specifically, it allows federal authorities to report information they receive from the Center from Missing and Exploited Children, CMEC, to state and local police without a court order. In addition, the bill removes the restrictions under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, ECPA, for reporting the contents of, and information pertaining to, a subscriber of stored electronic communications to the CMEC when a mandatory child porn report is filed with the CMEC pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 13032. This change may invite federal, state or local authorities to circumvent all subpoena and court order requirements under ECPA and allow them to obtain subscriber emails and information by triggering the initial report to the CMEC themselves. To the extent that these changes in ECPA may have that unintended effect, as this bill is considered in the Judiciary Committee and on the floor, we should consider mechanisms to guard against subverting the safeguards in ECPA from government officials going on fishing expeditions for stored electronic communications under the rubric of child porn investigations.

I also must express my disappointment in a recent Government Accounting Office, GAO, report that criticizes the Department of Justice information sharing regulations related to the CMEC tip line. Evidently, due to outdated turf mentalities, the Attorney General's regulations exclude both the United States Secret Service and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service from direct access to important tip line information. That is totally unacceptable, especially in the post 9-11 world where the importance of information sharing is greater than ever. How can the Administration justify support of this bill, which allows state and local law enforcement officers such access, when they are simultaneously refusing to allow other federal law enforcement agencies access to the same information? I urge the Attorney General to end this unseemly turf battle and to issue regulations allowing both the Secret Service and the Postal Inspection Service, who both perform valuable work in investigating these cases, to have access to this important information so that they can better protect our nation's children.

This bill also provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction where a defendant induces a child to engage in sexually explicit conduct outside the United States for the purposes of producing child pornography which they intend to transport to the United States. The provision is crafted to require the intent of actual transport of the material into the United States, unlike the House bill from the last Congress, which criminalized even an intent to make such material ``accessible.'' Under that overly broad wording, any material posted on a web site internationally could be covered, whether or not it was ever intended that the material be downloaded in the United States.

Finally, the bill provides also a new private right of action for the victims of child pornography. This provision has teeth, including injunctive relief and punitive damages that will help to put those who produce child pornography out of business for good. I commend Senator Hatch for his leadership on this provision.

These provisions are important, practical tools to put child pornographers out of business for good and in jail where they belong.

As to the administration proposal, unfortunately legal experts could not also vouch for the constitutionality of the bill supported by the Administration in the last Congress, which seemed to challenge the Supreme Court's decision, rather than accommodate the restraints spelled out by the Supreme Court. That proposal and the associated House bill from the 107th Congress simply ignored the Supreme Court's decision, reflecting an ideological response rather than a carefully drawn bill that would stand up to scrutiny. Last year, I received letters from other Constitutional scholars and practitioners expressing the same conclusion, which I will place in the record with unanimous consent.

With regard to the potential constitutional issues and suggested improvements, as I mentioned previously, the PROTECT Act is a good faith effort to tackle this problem, but it is not perfect and I would like to see some additional changes to the bill. I hope that we can consider these as the process moves forward.

First, regarding the tip line, I would like to clarify that law enforcement agents cannot ``tickle the tip line'' to avoid the key protections of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. This may include clarifying 42 U.S.C. Sec. 13032 that the initial tip triggering the report may not be generated by the government's investigative agents themselves. A tip line to the CMEC is just that--a way for outsiders to report wrongdoing to the CMEC and the government, not for the government to generate a report to itself without following otherwise required lawful process.

Second, regarding the affirmative defense, I would like to ensure that there is an affirmative defense for the new category of child pornography and for all cases where a defendant can prove in court that a specific, non-obscene image was made using not any child but only actual, identifiable adults.

As a general matter, it is worth repeating that we could be avoiding all these problems were we to take the simple approach of outlawing ``obscene'' child pornography of all types,

which we do in one new provision that I suggested. That approach would produce a law beyond any possible challenge. This approach is also supported by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which we all respect as the true expert in this field.

Following is an excerpt from the Center's answer to written questions submitted after our hearing, which I will place in the Record in its entirety:

Our view is that the vast majority (99-100%) of all child

pornography would be found to be obscene by most judges and

juries, even under a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt in

criminal cases. Even within the reasonable person under

community standards model, it is highly unlikely that any

community would not find child pornography obscene. . . .

In the post Free Speech decision legal climate, the

prosecution of child pornography under an obscenity approach

is a reasonable strategy and sound policy.

Thus, according to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the approach that is least likely to raise constitutional questions--using established obscenity law--is also an effective one. Because that is not the approach we have decided to use, I recognize that the PROTECT Act contains provisions about which some may have legitimate Constitutional questions.

Specifically, in addition to the provisions that I have already discussed, there were two amendments adopted in the Judiciary Committee in the last Congress to which I objected that are included in the bill as we introduce it today. I felt and still feel that these provisions needlessly risked a serious constitutional challenge to a bill that provided prosecutors the tools they needed to do their jobs. Let me discuss my opposition to these two amendments offered by my good friend Senator Hatch last Congress.

As to the expansion of the pandering provision, although I worked with Senator Hatch to write the new pandering provision in the PROTECT Act, I did not support Senator Hatch's amendment extending the provision to cover ``purported'' material, which criminalizes speech even when there is no underlying material at all--whether obscene or non-obscene, virtual or real, child or adult.

The pandering provision is an important tool for prosecutors to punish true child pornographers who for some technical reason are beyond the reach of the normal child porn distribution or production statutes. It is not meant to federally criminalize talking dirty over the internet or the telephone when the person never possesses any material at all. That is speech, and that goes too far.

The original pandering provision in S. 2520 was quite broad, and some argued that it presented constitutional problems as written, but I thought that prosecutors needed a strong tool, so I supported Senator Hatch on that current provision.

I was heartened that Professor Schauer of Harvard, a noted First Amendment expert, testified at our hearing that he thought that the original provision was Constitutional, barely. Unfortunately, Professor Schauer has since written to me stating that this new amendment to include ``purported'' material ``would push well over the constitutional edge a provision that is now up against the edge, but probably barely on the constitutional side of it.'' I will place that letter and other materials in the record with unanimous consent of the Senate.

Because this change endangers the entire pandering provision, because it is unwise, and because that section is already strong enough to prosecute those who peddle child pornography, I hope that we can debate the merits of that provision as the legislative process continues.

And as to the inclusion of 100 percent virtual child pornography in ``Identifiable Minor'' provision, a change to the definition of ``identifiable minor'' would expand the bill to cover ``virtual'' child pornography that is, 100 percent computer generated pictures not involving any real children. For that reason, it also presents constitutional problems. I objected to this amendment when it was added to the bill in the last Congress in Committee and I continue to have serious concerns with it now.

Senator Hatch and I agree that legislation in this area is important. But regardless of our personal views, any law must be within constitutional limits or it does no good at all. This change which would include all ``virtual child pornography'' in the definition of child pornography, in my view, crosses the constitutional line, however, and needlessly risks protracted litigation that could assist child pornographers in escaping punishment. I hope we can work to narrow this provision.

Although I joined Senator Hatch in introducing this bill, even when it was introduced last year I expressed concern over certain provisions. One such provision was the new definition of ``identifiable minor.'' When the bill was introduced, I noted that this provision might ``both confuse the statute unnecessarily and endanger the already upheld 'morphing' section of the CPPA.'' I said I was concerned that it ``could present both overbreadth and vagueness problems in a later constitutional challenge.''

The Supreme Court made it clear that we can only outlaw child pornography in two situations: No. 1, it is obscene, or No. 2, it involves real kids. That is the law as stated by the Supreme Court, whether or not we agree with it.

The original ``identifiable minor'' provision in the PROTECT Act may be used without any link to obscenity doctrine. Therefore, what saved the original version as introduced in the 107th Congress was that it applied to child porn made with real ``persons.'' The provision was designed to cover all sorts of images of real kids that are morphed or altered, but not something entirely made by computer, with no child involved. That is the provision as Senator Hatch and I introduced this bill last year.

The change adopted in the Judiciary Committee last year, however, redefined ``identifiable minor'' by creating a new category of pornography for any ``computer generated image that is virtually indistinguishable from an actual minor'' dislodged, in my view, that sole constitutional anchor. The new provision could be read to include images that never involved real children at all but were 100 percent computer generated.

That was never the goal of this provision and that was the reason it was constitutional. There are other provisions in the bill that deal with obscene virtual child pornography that I support. This provision was intended to ease the prosecutor's burden in cases where images of real children were cleverly altered to avoid prosecution.

I support the definition of ``identifiable minor'' as we originally wrote and introduced it last Congress. Because this new change seriously weakens the constitutional argument supporting this entire provision, I oppose it and I hope that we can work to further narrow this provision.

These provisions raise legitimate concerns, but in the interest of making progress I support consideration of the measure as introduced. I hope that we can work to debate these issues and improve it and produce a bill with the best chance of withstanding a constitutional challenge.

That is not everyone's view. Others evidently think it is more important to make an ideological statement than to write a law. A media report on this legislation at the end of the last Congress reported the wide consensus that the Hatch-Leahy bill was more likely than the House bill to withstand scrutiny, but quoted a Republican House member as stating: ``Even if it comes back to Congress three times we will have created better legislation.''

To me, that makes no sense. Why not create the ``better legislation'' right now for today's children, instead of inviting more years of litigation and putting at risk any convictions obtained in the interim period before the Supreme Court again reviews the constitutionality of Congress' effort to address this serious problem? That is what the PROTECT Act seeks to accomplish.

Even though this bill is not perfect, I am glad to stand with Senator Hatch to secure its approval by the Senate as I did in the last Congress.

As I have explained, I believe that this issue is so important that I have been willing to compromise and to support a measure even though I do not agree with each and every provision that it contains. That is how legislation is normally passed. I hope that the Administration and the House do not decide to play politics with this issue

this year as I fear they did at the close of the last Congress. I urge swift consideration and passage of this important bill aimed at protecting our nation's children.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters and materials to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce the Positive Aging Act of 2004 to improve the accessibility and quality of mental health services for our rapidly growing population of older Americans with my colleagues Senators Breaux and Collins. Representatives Patrick Kennedy and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen are also introducing a companion bill in the House this afternoon.

My colleagues John Breaux and Patrick Kennedy introduced this bill initially to focus on mental health programs, and with constituent input we decided to broaden it to involve the aging community as well. I want to acknowledge our partners from both the mental health and aging organizations who have collaborated with us and been working hard on these issues for a long time.

Our significant success in extending the life span of older adults has created a set of challenges related to the quality of life for American's senior citizens. It is critically important now to focus on making the extra years of life as productive and healthy as possible. This legislation is designed to do just that. It puts mental health services on a par with other primary care services in community settings that are easily accessible to the elderly. I firmly believe we must integrate mental health services with other essential primary care.

The Surgeon General's report on mental health in 1999 told us that disability due to mental illness in the elderly population is fast becoming a major public health problem. Depression, dementia, anxiety, and substance abuse are growing problems among older Americans that result in functional dependence, long-term institutional care and reduced quality of life.

Nearly 20 percent of those over age 55 experience mental illnesses that are not a part of ``normal'' aging, and are all too frequently undetected and untreated. The real tragedy is that we can effectively treat many of these conditions, but in far too many instances we are not making such treatments available. Unrecognized and untreated mental illness among elderly adults can be traced to gaps in training of health professionals, and in our failure to fully integrate mental health screening and treatment with other health services. Far too often physicians and other health professionals fail to recognize the signs and symptoms of mental illness. More troubling, knowledge about effective interventions is simply not accessible to many primary care practitioners.

Research has shown that treatment of mental illnesses can reduce the need for other health services and can improve health outcomes for those with other chronic diseases. These missed opportunities to diagnose and treat mental diseases are taking a huge toll on the elderly and increasing the burden on their families and our health care system.

I know there are a number of reasons for our failure to meet the mental health needs of our seniors. Regrettably, acknowledging and seeking mental health care can be impeded by the stigma associated with mental illness. In addition, Medicare benefit discrimination related to coverage of mental health services continues to be a barrier to appropriate care for the elderly.

Finally, the lack of coverage for prescription drugs in Medicare has until now imposed significant financial burdens on many older Americans. Notwithstanding the addition of a limited Medicare drug benefit, there remains the potential that drugs needed for the treatment of mental illness will be treated unfairly through formulary restrictions, prior authorization, and higher out-of-pocket expenses. We must be especially vigilant in our oversight of this benefit to prevent such discrimination on behalf of the millions of older Americans with mental illnesses.

The bill we are introducing today provides new authorities and resources to the Administration on Aging (AOA) and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) in the Department of Health and Human Services. For over 35 years, the AOA has provided home and community-based services to millions of older persons through the programs funded under the Older Americans Act. SAMHSA provides block grants to the States and other financial support to develop and apply best practices in the identification and treatment of mental diseases at the community level. Working together these agencies have the potential for strengthening and extending the delivery of mental health services to older Americans.

This legislation focuses on getting mental health services to community sites where primary care and other social services are provided. It will promote the integration of mental health services and the use of evidence-based practice protocols. This approach has the advantage of building on existing structures and programs, and ``mainstreaming'' mental health care for these vulnerable populations.

The bill authorizes AOA to make formula grants to the states for the development and operation of systems for providing mental health screening and treatment services to older Americans. These funds may also be used for outreach programs to increase public awareness of the availability and effectiveness of mental health assessments and treatment. Priority will be given to areas that are medically under- served and include significant numbers of older adults. States will be required to coordinate projects with existing community agencies and voluntary organizations offering services to the targeted populations.

This legislation also establishes new grant authorities at AOA to support development and operation of projects for screening and treating mental illness among seniors in rural and urban areas.

Multidisciplinary teams of mental health professionals relying on evidence-based intervention and treatment protocols are required to deliver these services. To the maximum extent possible, the grants will be coordinated with activities in senior centers, adult day care programs, and naturally occurring retirement centers (NORCs).

This legislation also authorizes two new grant programs at SAMHSA to provide new resources to support mental health screening and treatment services in clinical settings. Primary care sites serving a geriatric patient population such as public or private nonprofit community health centers or private practices would be eligible for one of these new grant programs.

The other program will provide support for geriatric mental health outreach teams to foster collaboration between clinical sites and senior centers, assisted living facilities, and other social or residential service centers.

Since the projects supported by these new grant programs are based in clinical settings, these funds will help to inform primary care practitioners and increase their capabilities in screening and treatment for mental illness. These projects build on existing health care delivery systems and extend their reach to low-income seniors in the community.

I expect these demonstrations will be a catalyst for breaking down the barriers that have limited access to mental health services and retarded the dissemination of evidence-based protocols in the primary care setting. I have specifically set a priority for projects to serve a variety of populations, including racial and ethnic minorities and low-income populations, in both rural and urban areas.

Finally, we have included in this bill several administrative provisions to raise the profile of mental health services for older adults at AOA and SAMHSA. A new Office of Older Adult Mental Health Services is established at AOA to provide a senior level focus for initiatives to improve the access of seniors to appropriate mental health screening and treatment services. At SAMHSA, the bill creates a new deputy director for geriatric mental health services within the Center for Mental Health Services to develop and implement targeted programs for older adults.

There are practical and immediate opportunities to improve mental health care for older Americans. This legislation can help to target our resources on identifying and treating a population at high risk for disability and dependence.

We have an obligation to take what is known about effective treatments and improve the quality of life and overall health of millions of seniors. It's not only the right thing to do; it's also an investment that will return enormous dividends in terms of more economical use of health resources, improved patient outcomes, and a better quality of life for older Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, with strong bi-partisan support, calling for the women's suffrage statue located in the Capitol Rotunda to include a likeness of Sojourner Truth. As many of my colleagues know, in the majestic Capitol Rotunda sits a monument honoring three pioneers of the women's suffrage movement, which led to the women of our great nation being granted the right to vote in 1920.

The monument features the busts of Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony that were sculpted by Adelaide Johnson, who passed away in 1955. As the Architect of the Capitol has noted, the monument was presented to the Capitol as a gift from the women of the United States by the National Women's Party and was accepted on behalf of Congress by the Joint Committee on the Library on February 10, 1921. The unveiling ceremony was held in the Rotunda on February 15, 1921, the 101st anniversary of the birth of Susan B. Anthony, and was attended by representatives of over 70 women's organizations. The Committee authorized the installation of the monument in the Crypt, where it remained until, by act of Congress in 1996, it was relocated to the Capitol Rotunda in May 1997.

In addition to the wonderful busts of Stanton, Mott, and Anthony, one of the interesting features of the monument is the existence of a large slab of stone that was never sculpted. Looking at the monument, it is clear that it was intended for a fourth person--another pioneer of the women's suffrage movement--to be sculpted. The legislation I am introducing today calls for Sojourner Truth to be that person.

Born into slavery as one of the youngest of thirteen children of James and Elizabeth in Hurley, which is in Ulster County, New York, in approximately 1897, Sojourner Truth's given name was Isabella Baumfree. Almost all of her brothers and sisters had been sold to other slave owners. Some of her earliest memories were of her parents' stories of the cruel loss of their other children.

Isabella was sold several times to various slave owners and suffered many hardships under slavery, but throughout her life she maintained a deep and unwavering faith that carried her through many difficult times.

In 1817, the New York State Legislature passed the New York State Emancipation Act, which granted freedom to those enslaved who were born before July 4, 1799. Unfortunately, however, this law declared that many men, women and children could not be freed until July 4, 1827, ten years later. While still enslaved and at the demand of her then owner, John Dumont, Isabella married an older slave named Thomas, with whom she had at least five children--Diane, Peter, Hannah, Elizabeth, and Sophia.

As the date of her release came near--July 4, 1827--she learned that Dumont was plotting to keep her enslaved, even after the Emancipation Act went into effect. For this reason, in 1826, she ran away from the Dumont plantation with her infant child, leaving behind her husband and other children.

She took refuge with a Quaker family--the family of Isaac Van Wagenen--and performed domestic work for them as well as missionary work among the poor of New York City. While working for the Van Wagenen's, she discovered that a member of the Dumont family had sold her youngest son Peter to a plantation owner in Alabama. At the time, New York law prohibited the sale of slaves outside New York State and so the sale of Peter was illegal. Isabella sued in court and won his return. In doing so, she became the first black woman in the United States to take a white man to court and win.

Isabella had always been very spiritual, and soon after being emancipated, she had a vision that affected her profoundly, leading her--as she later described it--to develop a ``perfect trust in God and prayer.'' In 1843, deciding her mission was to preach the word of God, Isabella changed her name to Sojourner Truth--her name for a traveling preacher, one who speaks the truth--and left New York. That summer she traveled throughout New England, calling her own prayer meetings and attending those of others. She preached ``God's truth and plan for salvation.''

After months of travel, she arrived in Northampton, Massachusetts, and joined the Northampton Association for Education and Industry, where she met and worked with abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglas, and Olive Gilbert.

As we know, during the 1850s, slavery became an especially heated issue in the United States. In 1850, Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Law, which allowed runaway slaves to be arrested and jailed without a jury trial, and in 1857, the Supreme Court ruled in the Dred Scott case that those enslaved had no rights as citizens and that the government could not outlaw slavery in the new territories.

Nevertheless, these extraordinarily difficult times did not stop Sojourner Truth from continuing her mission. Her life story--``The Narrative of Sojourner Truth: A Northern Slave''--written with the help of friend Olive Gilbert, was published in 1850.

While traveling and speaking in states across the country, Sojourner Truth met many women abolitionists and noticed that although women could be part of the leadership in the abolitionist movement, they could neither vote nor hold public office. It was

this realization that led Sojourner to become an outspoken supporter of women's rights.

In 1851, she addressed the Women's Rights Convention in Akron, Ohio, delivering her famous speech ``Ain't I a Woman?'' The applause she received that day has been described as ``deafening.'' From that time on, she became known as a leading advocate for the rights of women. Indeed, she was one of the nineteenth century's most eloquent voices for the cause of anti-slavery and women's rights.

By the mid-1850s, Truth had earned enough money from sales of her popular autobiography to buy land and a house in Battle Creek, Michigan. She continued her lectures, traveling to Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Illinois, and Wisconsin. When the Civil War erupted in 1861, she visited black troops stationed near Detroit, Michigan, and offered encouragement. After the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, she worked in Washington as a counselor and educator for those who had been previously enslaved through the Freedman's Relief Association and the Freedmen's Hospital. It was during this time--in October 1864--that she met with President Abraham Lincoln.

Throughout the 1870s, Sojourner Truth continued to speak on behalf of women and African Americans. Failing health, however, soon forced Sojourner to return to her Battle Creek, Michigan home, where she died on November 26, 1883.

This brief recounting of Sojourner Truth's life story only begins to speak of her faith, courage, intelligence, and steadfastness in the face of extraordinary circumstances and volatile times in our Nation's history. Though she could neither read nor write, her eloquence commanded the attention of thousands of Americans, both black and white. It therefore comes as no surprise to learn that among her many friends, admirers and staunch supporters were Frederick Douglass, Amy Post, Olive Gilbert, Parker Pillsbury, Mrs. Francis Gage, Weldell Phillips, Willilam Lloyd Garrison, Laura Haviland, Lucretia Mott, and Susan B. Anthony.

The legislation I am introducing today pays tribute to Sojourner Truth by including her in the portrait monument with three of her fellow leading suffragettes. That is why this legislation has the strong bi-partisan support of so many of my colleagues and of many organizations, including the National Council of Women's Organizations.

I also want to take a moment to say a special thanks of appreciation to Dr. C. Delores Tucker, Chair of the National Congress of Black Women, who is the champion of this legislation and for all African American women, children and families today. I know that with her continued, unwavering support, this legislation will be enacted. I ask all of my colleagues to support it. Thank you.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I join my esteemed colleague, the Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin, and other members, in introducing the Improving Access to Assistive Technology for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004.

For the past 6 months we have been working in a bipartisan fashion on the reauthorization of the Assistive Technology Act. Our proposed legislation is designed to remove barriers that people with disabilities encounter when attempting to access and purchase assistive technology. Working with the disability, business, and research and development communities, the Departments of Education, Labor, and Commerce, and the Small Business Administration, we have completely rewritten the Act to accomplish this goal. More specifically, our efforts focused on three fundamental changes: improving access by reducing bureaucracy; fostering private/public sector relationships; and stabilizing the State projects funding stream

In a March 1993 report to the President and the Congress on the ``Study on the Financing of Assistive Technology Devices and Services for Individuals with Disabilities,'' the National Council on Disability heard repeatedly from witnesses at public forums about the abandonment of equipment by persons with disabilities who had no opportunity prior to purchase to try it out or see it demonstrated.

Current law authorizes State projects to conduct system change activities and provide information and referral services to people with disabilities and their families. Although these are necessary and important duties, they do not immediately impact and help a person with a disability obtain assistive technology that he or she may need today.

This bill modifies the current list of authorized activities by expanding the authority of the State assistive technology act programs to increase the ability of persons with disabilities to experience or obtain assistive technology. Our bill, written by members of the Committee on Health Education, Labor and Pensions, provides the State projects with a tangible set of mandatory activities, yet at the same time provides State flexibility to address emerging State needs.

Therefore, the new functions require States to provide citizens with access to device loan, reutilization, and financing programs, and equipment demonstration centers directly by developing such programs, or partnering with another entity in the State currently conducting these programs. The purpose of these programs is to provide individuals with disabilities the opportunity to receive proper assessments and evaluations for assistive technology, test and obtain information about various devices, borrow or rent devices and equipment before it is purchased, and be able to access low interest loans to purchase needed technology. Each of these new requirements will help make the most of limited public resources in an environment that emphasizes consumer choice in and control of assistive technology services and funding. Further, they demonstrate the benefits and costs of assistive technology.

Additionally, our bill intensifies outreach efforts to employers, providers of employment and adult services, school systems, and health care providers that have direct contact with persons with disabilities to inform them about the beneficial aspects of assistive technology. Finally, we authorize States to create an advisory board to provide enhanced flexibility, guide the actions of the State programs and establish State priorities to meet the specific assistive technology needs of State residents.

The Committee on Health Education, Labor and Pensions learned through several public forums held this and last year that employers are frequently confused by the vast array of assistive technology devices available to employees, the costs associated with purchasing assistive technology, and how or where to purchase assistive technology to meet the needs of potential employees or employees acquiring disabilities due to age, accidents and other causes. However, various studies paint a different picture. The Office of Disability Employment Policy of the Department of Labor funds the Job Accommodation Network (JAN), a free consulting service designed to increase the employability of people with disabilities. According to an ongoing JAN evaluation, 71 percent of the businesses

that used JAN for assistance on providing specific accommodation information for employees with disabilities found that the accommodation that the employee needed cost between $0.00 and $500.00.

This sent up a red flag, indicating that there is a disconnect or gap between the knowledge base as it currently exists and how that information reaches not only employers, but schools, school districts, hospitals and other entities. I imagine at schools and school officials in Berlin, NH, Clearmont, WY, Tribune, KS, or any other rural community would have a difficult time determining the assistive technology needs of a student with a disability without some type of assistance.

I am also sure that the same is true for small businesses. The Disability Business and Technical Assistance Centers (DBTACs), funded by the National Institute on Disability Rehabilitation and Research (NIDRR) Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) at the Department of Education, are regional Centers that provide training, information, and technical assistance on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to businesses, consumers, schools, and State and local governments. The DBTACs do wonderful work; however, a small business owner usually does not know where to go or where to send an employee if he or she needs an assessment or knowledge of various assistive devices so the small business can provide the necessary and appropriate assistive device.

According to statistics from the Small Business Administration office of Advocacy, small businesses pay 44.3 percent of the total private payroll in the United States, and have generated anywhere from 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually over the past decade. As a current high school student with disabilities graduates and looks for a job, there is a good chance that this young person will work for a small business. That being said, if the student has accommodation or technology needs, will the business know where to go for assistance?

There are quite a few State Assistive Technology Act projects that are currently conducting outreach and public awareness activities, providing technical assistance to the business community, but it is not occurring unilaterally across the Nation. While current law authorizes such activities it does not specifically state that public awareness activities should be focused on the business community.

This bill aggressively engages businesses, especially small businesses, by providing them with greater access to technical assistance so that they can accommodate employees with disabilities. Additionally, in an effort to improve access to assistive technology and to lower costs, the bill enhances competition and forges incentives for researchers and developers.

The bill accomplishes these goals by improving the utilization of federal dollars and collaborative efforts between the agency administering the Assistive Technology Act projects and other Federal departments and initiatives, such as the Small Business Administration's (SBA) and Department of Labor's (DOL) interagency initiative to improve employment opportunities for people with disabilities in small businesses.

This bill also strengthens relationships between federally funded programs, such as the Assistive Technology Act projects, with private sector employers and researchers, by directing the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services at the Department of Education to make grants available to for-profit and non-profit entities to enhance public/private partnerships. These grant opportunities include creating grants to support the development of public service announcements, which can be modified for regional use, to reach out to small businesses, the aging population, and people with disabilities about the benefits of assistive technology. Grants can also fund a technical assistance provider to assist employers in addressing the needs of aging workers that are acquiring disabilities and may need assistive technology to maintain their current level of productivity.

When Congress passed the original Assistive Technology Act in 1988, Congressional intent was to provide States with time-limited Federal seed money to assist them in developing and implementing their own assistive technology programs. This Federal-State partnership has provided an important service to individuals with disabilities by strengthening the capacity of each State to assist individuals with disabilities of all ages with their assistive technology needs. However, thousands of people with disabilities could lose access to this infrastructure if the Federal contribution comes to an end. Additionally, the bill drafters have recognized that for-profit and non-profit entities have not put the necessary time and energy into fostering relationships with the State programs, fearing that the Federal contribution would end, and the State programs would no longer exist.

Three years ago, with the introduction of the President's New Freedom Initiative in the winter of 2001, the Administration launched new comprehensive programs to tell America that individuals with disabilities are valued citizens. Traditionally, individuals with disabilities have been outcasts of society--seen as burdensome and institutionalized--and have not been permitted to contribute to society or expected to pursue the American Dream that so many of us take for granted.

This Administration recognizes and believes in the full participation of people with disabilities in all areas of society. This belief has been put into action by increasing access to assistive and universally designed technologies, expanding educational and employment opportunities, promoting increased access into daily community life, and helping members of this misunderstood and underutilized group of citizens achieve and succeed. Compassionate Conservatism is what I believe our President calls it.

As the New Freedom Initiative states, ``Assistive and universally designed technologies can be a powerful tool for millions of Americans with disabilities, dramatically improving one's quality of life and ability to engage in productive work. New technologies are opening opportunities for even those with the most severe disabilities.'' This new-found sense of purpose and urgency, occurring shortly after the Olmstead decision, has re-ignited the interest and support for a Federal-State partnership to provide comprehensive, statewide assistive technology services to individuals with disabilities.

Consequently, Congress must stabilize funding for the State programs by supporting State efforts to improve the provision of assistive technology for individuals with disabilities. Congress must also ensure that the Federal commitment to independent living, and the full participation of individuals with disabilities in society, guaranteed through the President's ``New Freedom Initiative,'' is upheld. In this instance, that translates into providing States with the necessary funding to maintain the comprehensive Statewide programs of technology- related assistance for individuals with disabilities of all ages. However, the drafters of this legislation also expect States to take ownership of and expand upon the comprehensive Statewide programs of technology-related assistance.

Therefore, this bill removes the sunset provision in the 1998 Act and creates a typical reauthorization cycle, while slightly increasing the State minimum allotment to offset some of the costs for the additional requirements.

I would like to thank Senator Harkin, and his staff, particularly Mary Giliberti, for their hard work and dedication in putting together a bi-partisan bill that will assist thousands of individuals with disabilities access services and devices that they so desperately need. I would also like to thank Senators Roberts, DeWine, Warner, Ensign, Kennedy, and Reed, and their staff members, Jennifer Swenson, Mary Beth Luna, John (JK) Robinson, Lindsay Lovlien, Kent Mitchell, Connie Garner, Elyse Wasch, and Erica Swanson as they were on board and helped make this a bipartisan process from the beginning.

Senator Harkin and I were determined to make this a bipartisan process from the beginning. We have crafted a bill that we are confident will be overwhelmingly supported by both Republicans and Democrats--and most importantly by the disability community, providers of disability related

services, States, employers and businesses, and the educational community.

I ask unanimous consent that the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Public Land Protection and Conservation Act of 2004. I am pleased to have my esteemed colleagues Senator Frank Lautenberg, Senator Carl Levin, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Daniel Inouye, and Senator Ron Wyden cosponsoring the bill with me. This legislation encourages Federal, State, and local agencies, non-governmental entities, and Indian tribes to work together through a cost-shared, cooperative grant program to control the spread of terrestrial invasive species. The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide state assessment grants to inventory and prioritize invasive species problems. It provides additional grants to control invasive species on Federal land or adjacent areas. And most importantly, it provides rapid response funds for states to eradicate serious new outbreaks.

Invasive species cause devastating environmental, human health, and economic consequences throughout the Nation and world. They are responsible for damage to native ecosystems and vital industries, such as agriculture, fisheries, and ranching. The impacts of invasive species are estimated to cost the United States at least $100 billion each year. Invasive species threaten the existence of 42 percent of threatened and endangered species in the United States, and this is an issue that must be confronted.

The implications of the nationwide invasive species problem are enormous. Nowhere, however, are the impacts greater than in my home State of Hawaii, which has always been known for its biodiversity. Approximately 11,000 species are believed to have evolved from roughly 20,000 ancestors that successfully colonized at a rate of one every 35,000 years. Today, 20 to 50 new nonnative species arrive in Hawaii every year.

In total, unwanted alien pests are entering Hawaii at a rate that is about

two million times more rapid than the natural rate. Nonnative, invasive species comprise roughly 20 percent of the plants and animals in Hawaii. Invasive species are the number one cause of the decline of Hawaii's threatened and endangered species. This is a serious concern because Hawaii has more than 10,000 species found nowhere else on Earth. Of the 114 endangered species that have become extinct in the first 20 years of the Endangered Species Act, almost one-half were in Hawaii. The fragility of our native species is compounded by the fact that most introduced species have no natural predators in the state.

Let me give you just a few examples of invasive species problems in Hawaii. Control efforts for the Formosan ground termite are estimated to cost residents in Hawaii more than $150 million per year. Damage to our agricultural industry and the related control costs of the Mediterranean fruit fly are more than $450 million annually. Native birds in our rainforests are succumbing to malaria spread through introduced mosquitos.

Coqui frogs, accidentally imported on plants to Hawaii, can reach densities of 8,000 frogs per acre. Each one can produce a call at 90 decibels. The noise from 8,000 frogs at 90 decibels is equivalent to listening to a high-pitched jackhammer all night! Infestations of frogs are lowering property values and threatening Hawaii's export floriculture and nursery industries. Coqui frogs also consume more than 48,000 prey items per acre per night, depleting the food supply for threatened and endangered birds and spiders. Miconia, an invasive tree infesting over 15,000 acres of rainforest in Hawaii, eliminates the habitat of endangered plants and animals and causes serious erosion problems that threaten the water supply.

Miconia has overwhelmed all other species on these mountainsides. Miconia, like many invasives, is a major threat to native biodiversity.

The brown tree snake has invaded Guam and devastated native bird populations there. If it were to become established in Hawaii, economic costs have been estimated to exceed hundreds of millions of dollars.

Agriculture in Hawaii is threatened by the spread of the red imported fire ant, a serious problem in 14 southern states causing over $2 billion in annual damage. As you can see, the time to address the issue of invasive species is now, before there are even more serious problems.

My bill, the Public Land Protection and Conservation Act, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide grants to states, nonprofit, and tribal entities to assess, control, and eradicate invasive species. There are three types of grants in this bill, one of which requires matching funds.

First, this legislation provides grants to states for assessment projects to identify, quantify, and prioritize invasive species threats. This step is a critical underpinning for invasives programs, but many states do not have the resources to carry out this assessment.

Second, the control grants supply appropriate public or private entities or Indian tribes with funding to carry out, in partnership with a Federal agency, an eradication, containment, or management project on Federal land or adjacent land. Control projects would receive a higher ranking for funding based on shared priorities in state and Federal plans, the extensiveness or severity of the invasive species impacts in a state, and whether the project fosters results through public-private partnerships, among other criteria.

Control grants are cost-shared with states. A maximum of 75 percent of funding shall be federally provided for control projects on adjacent land, with the exception of pilot or demonstration projects, or projects that conserve threatened or endangered species, which shall receive 85 percent federal funding. The Federal share of control projects carried out on Federal land shall be 100 percent.

Finally, rapid response funds, designated for States facing new outbreaks of invasive species, will provide timely resources to eradicate these organisms before they gain a foothold. Rapid response funds are critical to States in order to combat newly identified invasives.

The impacts of invasive species are already costing the United States an estimated $100 billion each year. The Department of the Interior, in its FY 2005 budget request acknowledges that invasive species pose an enormous threat to the ecological and economic health of the Nation. The Department states that the economic costs associated with invasive species are enormous already, and increasing. The Department of the Interior and U.S. Forest Service together received approximately $126 million in FY 2004, and the combined FY 2005 request is identical. Although I applaud the current efforts of the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service, we need a more coordinated attack on invasive species. The attack must have robust funding if we are to work in partnership with the states.

An estimated 5,000 to 6,000 invasive species are established in the United States. With 73 percent of the continental United States held in private lands, our Federal lands will not be adequately protected without public-private partnerships because invasive species know no boundaries.

My bill requires coordination between the National Invasive Species Council, the Department of the Interior, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and state invasive species councils and plans. It provides the support necessary for agencies, organizations, and individuals to implement cooperative projects to address new threats and long-standing invasive species problems.

I am particularly pleased that the State of Hawaii is taking a leadership role in addressing invasive species problems as our State is intimately familiar with the serious impacts. Hawaii's Department of Land and Natural Resources, the State government, and each county's Invasive Species Councils are committed to a proactive approach to preserve the environmental heritage and economic security of our communities for generations to come. Each of these Councils now coordinates their activities on the State level through the formation of the Hawaii Invasive Species Council in 2003.

In addition to the Council, many public and private partnerships have been formed to protect our common natural resources. The East Maui Watershed Partnership brings together multiple public and private landowners and the County of Maui to control invasive species and protect 100,000 acres of our prime watershed areas. This is just one example of many highly successful and dedicated partnerships in Hawaii working to preserve our invaluable resources.

This legislation is supported by the State of Hawaii's Department of Land and Natural Resources, which has primary responsibility for land use, forests, wildlife and oceans. In his letter of support, the Chairperson of the DLNR, Mr. Peter Young, states that ``Increasing success in invasive species projects in Hawaii has come largely from the formation of strong partnerships between State, County and Federal agencies and private groups.'' The intent of this bill is to encourage partnerships like the East Maui Watershed Partnership and the Hawaii Invasives Species Council in their fight against invasives.

Most recently, the Hawaii State Legislature allocated $4 million of the $5 million requested by Governor Linda Lingle to support the Invasive Species Prevention and Control program. This request is part of the overall state proposal to earmark $20 million over the next four years. These actions demonstrate Hawaii's commitment to the problem. This money, however, is clearly not sufficient to control the nonnative species in Hawaii.

Despite their best efforts to reduce the devastation caused by invasive species, states lack the needed funds to adequately address this issue. The General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report on September 5, 2003, documenting gaps and barriers in Federal invasive species legislation. The number one barrier identified in the report was insufficient Federal funding for state efforts to control invasive species. Another barrier identified was the inadequate amount of general information and research on invasive species. My legislation will provide States the desperately needed funding to start a serious battle against invasive species.

The GAO report also recommended authorizing the National Invasive Species Council as the most effective leadership structure for managing invasive species. I applaud Senators Levin and

DeWine for addressing this issue in legislation they have introduced during the 108th Congress, the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003. I am a cosponsor of their bill, S. 525, because aquatic invasives are important in Hawaii. I am also a cosponsor of Senator Larry Craig's Noxious Weed Control Act of 2003, S. 144, that focuses on terrestrial weeds. My bill, the Public Land Protection and Conservation Act of 2004, will fill a needed gap by addressing all invasive organisms, flora and fauna, in and around federal lands through public-private partnerships.

The National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species, a coalition of representatives from major environmental organizations, has extended its full support for this legislation. Its letter of support calls this bill ``one of the best legislative proposals to date to deal with the growing threat that invasive species pose to our nation's ecological and economic health.'' The bill is also supported by The Conservation Council of Hawaii, the National Wildlife Federation affiliate in Hawaii. I greatly appreciate their endorsements.

Lastly, I want to acknowledge my colleague in the House, Representative Nick Rahall, for recognizing the gaps in national legislation for controlling and eradicating invasive species on Federal and adjacent lands through cooperative grants. He introduced H.R. 2310, the Species Protection and Conservation of the Environment Act, on June 3, 2003. His legislation provided a solid blueprint that inspired my bill, and I am eager to join him in the eradication of invasive species on Federal and adjacent lands.

There are increasingly severe problems and economic burdens associated with invasive species in our nation. Federal support to states to combat this problem at the ground level is crucial. If ever there was a time to commit to defending the security of our domestic resources for the future, it is now.

I ask unanimous consent that text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Alexander as we introduce this very significant conservation legislation. The junior Senator from Tennessee has been a long-time effective advocate for the environment and for conservation, not only in his own State of Tennessee but for our Nation.

The legislation we introduce today is a new, enhanced version of a piece of legislation that was introduced several years ago. We believe it is a very promising approach to launch one of the most significant conservation efforts ever considered by Congress. The American Outdoors Act is a landmark multiyear commitment to conservation programs directly benefiting all 50 States and hundreds of local communities. It creates a conservation royalty derived from the production of oil and gas on the Outer Continental Shelf and directs it toward the restoration of coastal wetlands, preservation of wildlife habitat, and it helps build and maintain local and State parks for our children, our children's children, for generations to come.

By enacting this legislation, we will make the most significant commitment of Federal resources to conservation ever and ensure a positive legacy of protecting and enhancing critical wildlife habitat, estuaries, marshlands, mountain ranges, open green spaces, and expanded recreational opportunity for Americans today and generations to come. The legislation builds on a great and notable effort made during the 106th Congress that was supported by Governors, mayors, and a coalition of over 5,000 organizations throughout the country. Unfortunately, despite our bipartisan and very deep and widespread support, our efforts were cut short before a final bill could be signed into law. Instead, a commitment was made by those who opposed the legislation last time to guarantee funding for these programs. And unfortunately, we all know the story and the outcome of those promises.

As we have painfully witnessed since then, these programs have not only been reduced, some of them have been eliminated completely, and are terribly underfunded in terms of the critical needs that are presented to us today.

What has happened is exactly what those of us who initiated the effort always anticipated. Each of these significant programs has been shortchanged and a number of them have been left out altogether or forced to compete with each other for Federal resources.

The legislation we are introducing today provides reliable, significant, and steady funding for the urgent and worthy conservation and outdoor recreation needs of our states and rapidly growing urban areas. What makes more sense than to take a portion of revenues from a depleting capital asset of the Nation--offshore Federal oil and gas resources--and reinvest them into sustaining the natural resources of our Nation: wetlands; parks and recreation areas and wildlife.

The Americans Outdoors Act dedicates assured funding for four distinct programs and honors promises made long ago to the American people. The four programs include:

Coastal impact assistance--$500 million to oil and gas producing coastal States to mitigate the various impacts of States that serve as the ``platform'' for the crucial development of Federal offshore energy resources from the Outer Continental Shelf as well as provide for wetland restoration. This program merely acknowledges the impacts to and contribution of States that are providing the energy to run our country's economy. The Outer Continental Shelf supplies 25 percent of our Nation's oil consumption, more than any other country including Saudi Arabia, with the promise of more, expected to reach 40 percent by 2008. Since this frontier was officially opened to significant oil and gas exploration in 1953, no single region has contributed as much to the nation's energy production as the OCS. The OCS accounts for more than 25 percent of our Nation's natural gas and oil production. With annual returns to the Federal Government averaging $5 billion annually, no single area has contributed as much to the Federal Treasury as the OCS. In fact, since 1953, the OCS has contributed $140 billion to the U.S. Treasury. Allocation to States would be based on their proximity to production. Thirty-five percent of the State's allocation would be shared with coastal political subdivisions based on a formula of 50 percent proximity to production, 25 percent miles of coastline and 25 percent coastal population;

$450 million for the State side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, LWC, to provide stable funding to States for the planning and development of State and local parks and recreation facilities. The allocation to States would be 60 percent equally among all 50 States and 40 percent based on relative population. This program provides greater revenue certainty for State and local governments to help them meet their recreational needs through recreational facility development and resource protection--all under the discretion of State and local authorities while protecting the rights of private property owners;

Wildlife conservation, education and restoration--$350 million is allocated to all 50 States through the successful program of Pittman- Robertson for the conservation of nongame and game species, with the principal goal of preventing species from becoming endangered or listed under the Endangered Species Act. By taking steps now to prevent species from becoming endangered we are able to not only conserve the significant cultural heritage of wildlife enjoyment for the people of

this country, but also avoid the substantial costs associated with recovery for endangered species. Allocations to States would be based on a formula of \2/3\ relative population and \1/3\ relative land area; and

The Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program, UPARR--$125 million in the form of matching grants, 70 percent to provide direct assistance to our cities and towns so that they can focus on the needs of their populations within the more densely inhabited areas around the country where there are fewer green-spaces, playgrounds and soccer fields for our youth.

I would also like to acknowledge our interest in several programs that are not part of this initial package but will be considered as the bill moves through the process. For example, the Federal side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund which focuses primarily on Federal land acquisition. The goal of the Federal side of the LWCF was to share a significant portion of revenues from offshore development with States to provide for protection and public use of the natural environment. It is our intention to discuss this program with our colleagues on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee with the goal of developing a compromise that will garner broad support. In addition, other worthy programs that are not part of the legislation we are introducing today but ideally would be part of a larger more comprehensive effort include Historic Preservation, Payment in Lieu of Taxes, PILT, and the Forest Legacy program.

While we confront a time of war, budget deficits and a struggling economy, setting aside a portion of oil and gas royalties to our states and localities for initiatives such as outdoor spaces or recreation facilities for our children to play could not be more crucial. Programs such as the State side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund are in fact the economic stimulus that our States and cities need in these times. The time has come to take the proceeds from a non-renewable resource for the purpose of reinvesting a portion of these revenues in the conservation and enhancement of our renewable resources. To continue to do otherwise, as we have over the last 50 years, is fiscally irresponsible.

As I said, the legislation we introduce today, therefore, provides a reliable, significant, and steady stream of funding that cannot be manipulated or tampered with at the whim of this or that, but will be there for conservation efforts that our local communities and States can count on to provide this great legacy and heritage for our grandchildren.

What makes more sense than taking a portion of the offshore oil and gas revenues that have generated almost $130 billion since the first well was drilled off of our shore on the Continental Shelf almost 100 years ago? What would make more sense than taking a small portion of that money and giving it back to the environment, back to our mountain ranges, to our marshes, to our coastal areas, protecting and preserving our great land for generations to come? The American Outdoors Act does exactly that.

It dedicates and assures funding for four distinct programs: Coastal impact assistance, of which Louisiana and other coastal States would benefit. Of course, we are proud to serve as oil and gas producers, helping us secure our energy independence from foreign sources, providing much critical feedstock, if you will, for our energy industry in the State, and expanding our economic opportunities. Because we produce so much oil and gas, we would deserve help with our vanishing coastline.

In addition, the other segment of this bill would fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund State side. As the Senator from Tennessee noted, he and I are firmly committed to also providing support and full funding for the Federal side of land and water, as this bill moves through the process.

Wildlife conservation, education, and restoration would be fully funded. That helps all of our States. The Urban Parks and Recreation Program, which has been so critical for quality-of-life issues and economic development in our cities, in our suburbs, our urban centers, would also be funded.

Time is not on our side. While other issues might be able to wait and other issues could maybe be funded gradually over time, for every month we delay, for every year we delay, we lose acres and acres, miles and miles of land we will never be able to recover.

Louisiana itself is literally washing away. We have lost the size of the State of Rhode Island off our coast in the last 100 years. If some foreign country attacked our country and tried to take a portion of land away from us, we would fight with every strength and every tool and every resource available. But we stand here literally in some ways twiddling our thumbs while this land is washed away into the Gulf of Mexico. And not just any land but very productive land and very necessary land, not just for Louisiana but for the entire United States.

I close with a quote from Teddy Roosevelt because it is appropriate. He was a great conservation President. Over 100 years ago he started many programs. I love taking my children to Theodore Roosevelt Island. We ride our bikes over there. I love telling them the story of Teddy Roosevelt.

I explain many stories about what he did, hunting in Louisiana, the history of the black bear, et cetera.

In his autobiography he wrote of his experiences in Coastal Louisiana:

And to lose the chance to see frigate birds soaring in

circles above the storm or, a file of pelicans winging their

way homeward across the crimson afterglow of the sunset, or a

myriad of terns flashing in the bright light of midday as

they hover in a shifting maze above the beach, why, the loss

is like the loss of a gallery of masterpieces of the artists

of old time.

This is what he said when he recalled his trip to Breton Island Sound, the second of over 540 national wildlife heritage areas designated in the last 100 years. The land in this picture is gone. It no longer exists because we have twiddled our thumbs for almost 100 years.

Today we introduce a bill to stop us from twiddling our thumbs, direct our resources, get serious about conservation, serious about the taxpayer money, and do something with it that the overwhelming majority of the taxpayers would stand up and cheer, if they had the chance to vote on it.

I thank the Chair. It will be a pleasure working with the Senator from Tennessee as we lead this great effort.