Indian School Bus Route Safety Reauthorization Act of 2003
Legislative Activity
Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. (text of measure as introduced: CR S3182)
March 5, 2003
View full timeline
Introduced in Senate
March 5, 2003
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S3181-3182)
March 5, 2003
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. (text of measure as introduced: CR S3182)
March 5, 2003
Floor Debate
21 membersWhat members said about S. 528 on the floor
SMC
CL
GVV
HRCJB+16
Floor Debate
21 membersWhat members said about S. 528 on the floor
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…
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, 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…
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…
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.
Mr. President, I am proud to introduce the Lifespan Respite Care Act of 2003 today, a bill to establish the availability of respite services for our family caregivers, and to increase coordination of…
Mr. President, I am proud to introduce the Lifespan Respite Care Act of 2003 today, a bill to establish the availability of respite services for our family caregivers, and to increase coordination of these programs so that caregivers will be better able to access them.
As a nation, we rely on family caregivers. Twenty-six million Americans care for an adult family member who is ill or disabled, Eighteen million children have a condition that place significant demands on their parental caregivers. Four million Americans with mental retardation or a developmental disability rely on family members for care and supervision. If services provided by family caregivers were replaced by paid services, it would cost nearly $200 billion annually.
But these are just numbers. Every member has a human face. Let me tell you about Heather Thoms-Chelsey. I met Heather last year at a press conference announcing the Lifespan Respite Care Act of 2002. At that press conference I also met Heather's then 4-year-old daughter, Victoria, who as Rett syndrome. Victoria is totally dependent on family caregivers for all basic living skills: dressing, feeding, bathing and toileting. She also engages in self-injurious behaviors, hand-biting, head banging, body slamming, hair pulling. She has to be monitored all the time for her protection. Heather says, ``I feel tired and exhausted after only less than 5 years, what will I be like in 15? Or even 20?''
Heather is very resourceful. She has managed to find some respite care--164 hours per year--through her State's department of hygiene and mental health. She used 4 hours of her allotted time to bring a respite care worker with her to the press conference so she could tell us her story. The State allows Heather a maximum payment of $7.50 per hour for respite services. It is difficult to find someone who can care for a child with such complicated needs for that. Most of the time, Heather uses the respite care dollars to hire someone to help her care for Victoria in the home or on an outing. Very rarely does Heather actually get to leave the house and take a real break. Some would say Heather is one of the lucky ones. She actually has some respite care. Many people have none.
Heather's story is repeated all across this country. Some people are caring for children or grandchildren with special needs and elderly parents at the same time. Some have called these people the ``sandwich'' generation, sandwiched between the caregiving demands of children or grandchildren and the caregiving demands of elderly parents.
Just because family caregiving is unpaid does not mean it is costless. Caregiving is certainly personally rewarding but it can also result in substantial emotional and physical strain and financial hardship. Many caregivers are exhausted and become sick themselves. Many give up jobs to care for loved ones, putting their own financial security in jeopardy.
I believe that our country is suffering not just from a budget deficit, but what Mona Harrington has called, ``a care deficit.'' Everywhere we look--nursing, childcare, teaching, long-term care--we see shortages and looming crises that threaten the provision of care on which our children, our parents, and our families all depend. Caregiving is undervalued, underfinanced, and too often uncompensated. Family caregiving seems almost ``invisible'' in our society, perhaps because it is work that women perform in the home.
It is time we recognize the heroic effort of our family caregivers and provide them the kind of support they need before their own health deteriorates. One way to do that is through respite care. Respite care provides a much needed break from the daily demands of caregiving for a few hours or a few days. These welcome breaks help protect the physical and mental health of the family caregiver, making it possible for the individual in need of care to remain in the home.
Unfortunately, respite care is hard to find. Many caregivers do not know how to find information about services available. Even when community respite care services exist, there are often long waiting lists. For example, the United Cerebral Palsy Association of Nassau County on Long Island, provides respite service to 70 people but they have had a 200-person waiting list since 1995. In the same community, the Association for the Help of Retarded Children serves 140 youngsters; 200 children are on their waiting list. Variety Preschoolers serves 150 toddlers with special needs; 120 children are on their waiting list. The list goes on and on.
But, this is not a problem isolated to Long Island, NY. It is happening all across the America. There are more caregivers in need of respite care than there are respite care resources available. Part of the problem is funding and part of the problem is staffing.
Children and adults with special needs require trained caregivers. Parents and spouses and other family caregivers are understandably hesitant to leave their loved ones with untrained staff. But training staff costs money and trained staff are going to be reluctant to work for as little as $7-8 an hour. Until we recognize the value of caregiving and pay for it as a valued service, we are going to continue to face shortages: shortages in respite care but also shortage in caregiving in a larger sense.
We don't have enough teachers. We don't have enough nurses. We don't have enough childcare workers. We don't have enough trained workers to care for our elderly. And we don't have enough trained staff to provide respite care.
It is time that we, as a nation, face this care deficit and do something about it.
Today, I, along with my colleagues, Senators Warner, Mikulski, Snowe, Breaux, Jeffords, Murray, Collins, Kennedy, and Smith, are introducing the Lifespan Respite Care Act of 2003. This bill would provide over $90 million in grants annually to develop a coordinated system of respite care services for family caregivers of individuals with special needs regardless of age. Funds could also be used to increase respite care services or to train respite care workers or volunteers.
Some of my colleagues have questioned the pricetag of this legislation. I ask them to do the math. With 26 million caregivers of adults and 18 million caregivers of children with special needs, $90 million dollars amounts to $2.05 per caregiver. If anything, we should be investing more in respite care, not less. Estimates place the cost of current family caregiving at $200 billion annually. We simply cannot afford to continue to ignore this issue.
I remain committed to the concerns of family caregivers and to their need for respite care in particular. Together, I believe we can pass respite care legislation.
But, our work cannot stop there. The need of family caregivers for respite care is just one important piece of a larger complex picture. I am asking you to join me in a longer term effort to put the care deficit--in childcare, in teaching, in nursing, in long-term care, as well as in family caregiving--on the national agenda.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Indian School Bus Route Safety Reauthorization Act of 2003. This bill continues an important Federal program begun in TEA-21 that addresses a unique…
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Indian School Bus Route Safety Reauthorization Act of 2003. This bill continues an important Federal program begun in TEA-21 that addresses a unique problem with the roads in and around the Nation's single largest Indian reservation and the neighboring counties. Through this program, Navajo children who had been prevented from getting to school by frequently impassable roads are now traveling safely to and from their schools. Because of the unusual nature of this situation, I believe it must continue to be addressed at the Federal level.
I would like to begin with some statistics on this unique problem and why I believe a Federal solution continues to be necessary. The Navajo Nation is by far the Nation's largest Indian reservation, covering 25,000 square miles. Portions of the Navajo Nation are in three States: Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. No other reservation comes anywhere close to the size of Navajo. To give you an idea of its size, the State of West Virginia is about 24,000 square miles. In fact, 10 States are smaller in size than the Navajo reservation.
According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, about 9,800 miles of public roads serve the Navajo Nation. Only about one-fifth of these roads are paved. The remaining 7,600 miles, 78 percent, are dirt roads. Every day schoolbuses use nearly all of these roads to transport Navajo children to and from school.
About 6,400 miles of the roads on the Navajo reservation are BIA roads, and about 2,500 miles are State and county roads. All public roads within, adjacent to, or leading to the reservation, including BIA, State, and county roads are considered part of the Federal Indian reservation road system. However, only BIA roads are eligible for Federal maintenance funding from BIA. Moreover, construction funding and improvement funding from the Federal Lands Highways Program in TEA- 21 is generally applied only to BIA or tribal roads. Thus, the States and counties are responsible for maintenance and improvement of their 2,500 miles of roads that serve the reservation.
The counties in the three States that include the Navajo reservation are simply not in a position to maintain all of the roads on the reservation that carry children to and from school. Nearly all of the land area in these counties is under Federal or tribal jurisdiction.
For example, in my State of New Mexico, three-quarters of McKinley County is either tribal or Federal land, including BLM, Forest Service, and military land. The Indian land area alone comprises 61 percent of McKinley County. Consequently, the county can draw upon only a very limited tax base as a source of revenue for maintenance purposes. Of the nearly 600 miles of county-maintained roads in McKinley County, 512 miles serve Indian land.
In San Juan County, UT, the Navajo Nation comprises 40 percent of the land area. The county maintains 611 miles of roads on the Navajo Nation. Of these, 357 miles are dirt, 164 miles are gravel, and only 90 miles are paved. On the reservation, the county has three high schools, two elementary schools, two BIA boarding schools and four preschools.
The situation is similar in neighboring San Juan County, NM, as well, Apache, Navajo, and Coconino Counties, AZ. In light of the counties' limited resources, I do believe the Federal
Government is asking the States and counties to bear too large a burden for road maintenance in this unique situation.
Families living in and around the reservation are no different from families anywhere else; their children are entitled to the same opportunity to get to school safely and to get a good education. However, the many miles of unpaved and deficient roads on the reservation are frequently impassable, especially when they are wet, muddy, or snowy. If the schoolbuses don't get through, the kids simply cannot get to school.
These children are literally being left behind.
Because of the vast size of the Navajo reservation, the cost of maintaining the county roads used by the school buses is more than the counties can bear without Federal assistance. I believe it is essential that the Federal Government help these counties deal with this one-of- a-kind situation.
In response to this unique situation, in 1998 Congress began providing direct annual funding to the counties that contain the Navajo reservation to help ensure that children on the reservation can get to and from their public schools. The funding was included at my request in section 1214(d) of TEA-21. Under this provision, $1.5 million is made available each year to be shared equally among the three States. The funding is provided directly to the counties in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah that contain the Navajo reservation. I want to be very clear: these Federal funds can be used only on roads that are located within or that lead to a reservation, that are on the State or county maintenance system, and that serve as schoolbus routes.
This program has been very successful. For the last 6 years, the counties have used the annual funding to help maintain the routes used by school-buses to carry children to school and to Head Start programs. I had an opportunity in 1998 to see first hand the importance of this funding when I rode in a schoolbus over some of the roads that are maintained using funds from this program.
The bill I am introducing today provides a simple 6-year reauthorization of that program, with a modest increase in the annual funding to allow for inflation and for additional roads to be maintained in each of the three States.
I believe that continuing this program for 6 more years is fully justified because of the vast area of the Navajo reservation--by far the Nation's largest--and the unique nature of this need that only the Federal Government can deal with effectively.
I don't believe any child wanting to get to and from school safely should have to risk or tolerate unsafe roads. Kids today, particularly in rural and remote areas, face enough barriers to getting a good education. I ask all Senators to join me in assuring that Navajo schoolchildren at least have a chance to get to school safely and get an education.
My bill has the support of the Southeastern Utah Association of Local Governments and the Tri-State County Association of New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah. I ask unanimous consent that letters and resolutions from New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
I am pleased that Congressmen Tom Udall of New Mexcio, Rick Renzi of Arizona, and James David Matheson of Utah are introducing a companion bill today in the House. I look forward to working with them this year and with the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member, to incorporate this legislation once again into the comprehensive 6-year reauthorization of the surface transportation bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Show 8 more
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Indian School Bus Route Safety Reauthorization Act of 2003. This bill continues an important Federal program begun in TEA-21 that addresses a unique…
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Indian School Bus Route Safety Reauthorization Act of 2003. This bill continues an important Federal program begun in TEA-21 that addresses a unique problem with the roads in and around the Nation's single largest Indian reservation and the neighboring counties. Through this program, Navajo children who had been prevented from getting to school by frequently impassable roads are now traveling safely to and from their schools. Because of the unusual nature of this situation, I believe it must continue to be addressed at the Federal level.
I would like to begin with some statistics on this unique problem and why I believe a Federal solution continues to be necessary. The Navajo Nation is by far the Nation's largest Indian reservation, covering 25,000 square miles. Portions of the Navajo Nation are in three States: Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. No other reservation comes anywhere close to the size of Navajo. To give you an idea of its size, the State of West Virginia is about 24,000 square miles. In fact, 10 States are smaller in size than the Navajo reservation.
According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, about 9,800 miles of public roads serve the Navajo Nation. Only about one-fifth of these roads are paved. The remaining 7,600 miles, 78 percent, are dirt roads. Every day schoolbuses use nearly all of these roads to transport Navajo children to and from school.
About 6,400 miles of the roads on the Navajo reservation are BIA roads, and about 2,500 miles are State and county roads. All public roads within, adjacent to, or leading to the reservation, including BIA, State, and county roads are considered part of the Federal Indian reservation road system. However, only BIA roads are eligible for Federal maintenance funding from BIA. Moreover, construction funding and improvement funding from the Federal Lands Highways Program in TEA- 21 is generally applied only to BIA or tribal roads. Thus, the States and counties are responsible for maintenance and improvement of their 2,500 miles of roads that serve the reservation.
The counties in the three States that include the Navajo reservation are simply not in a position to maintain all of the roads on the reservation that carry children to and from school. Nearly all of the land area in these counties is under Federal or tribal jurisdiction.
For example, in my State of New Mexico, three-quarters of McKinley County is either tribal or Federal land, including BLM, Forest Service, and military land. The Indian land area alone comprises 61 percent of McKinley County. Consequently, the county can draw upon only a very limited tax base as a source of revenue for maintenance purposes. Of the nearly 600 miles of county-maintained roads in McKinley County, 512 miles serve Indian land.
In San Juan County, UT, the Navajo Nation comprises 40 percent of the land area. The county maintains 611 miles of roads on the Navajo Nation. Of these, 357 miles are dirt, 164 miles are gravel, and only 90 miles are paved. On the reservation, the county has three high schools, two elementary schools, two BIA boarding schools and four preschools.
The situation is similar in neighboring San Juan County, NM, as well, Apache, Navajo, and Coconino Counties, AZ. In light of the counties' limited resources, I do believe the Federal
Government is asking the States and counties to bear too large a burden for road maintenance in this unique situation.
Families living in and around the reservation are no different from families anywhere else; their children are entitled to the same opportunity to get to school safely and to get a good education. However, the many miles of unpaved and deficient roads on the reservation are frequently impassable, especially when they are wet, muddy, or snowy. If the schoolbuses don't get through, the kids simply cannot get to school.
These children are literally being left behind.
Because of the vast size of the Navajo reservation, the cost of maintaining the county roads used by the school buses is more than the counties can bear without Federal assistance. I believe it is essential that the Federal Government help these counties deal with this one-of- a-kind situation.
In response to this unique situation, in 1998 Congress began providing direct annual funding to the counties that contain the Navajo reservation to help ensure that children on the reservation can get to and from their public schools. The funding was included at my request in section 1214(d) of TEA-21. Under this provision, $1.5 million is made available each year to be shared equally among the three States. The funding is provided directly to the counties in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah that contain the Navajo reservation. I want to be very clear: these Federal funds can be used only on roads that are located within or that lead to a reservation, that are on the State or county maintenance system, and that serve as schoolbus routes.
This program has been very successful. For the last 6 years, the counties have used the annual funding to help maintain the routes used by school-buses to carry children to school and to Head Start programs. I had an opportunity in 1998 to see first hand the importance of this funding when I rode in a schoolbus over some of the roads that are maintained using funds from this program.
The bill I am introducing today provides a simple 6-year reauthorization of that program, with a modest increase in the annual funding to allow for inflation and for additional roads to be maintained in each of the three States.
I believe that continuing this program for 6 more years is fully justified because of the vast area of the Navajo reservation--by far the Nation's largest--and the unique nature of this need that only the Federal Government can deal with effectively.
I don't believe any child wanting to get to and from school safely should have to risk or tolerate unsafe roads. Kids today, particularly in rural and remote areas, face enough barriers to getting a good education. I ask all Senators to join me in assuring that Navajo schoolchildren at least have a chance to get to school safely and get an education.
My bill has the support of the Southeastern Utah Association of Local Governments and the Tri-State County Association of New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah. I ask unanimous consent that letters and resolutions from New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
I am pleased that Congressmen Tom Udall of New Mexcio, Rick Renzi of Arizona, and James David Matheson of Utah are introducing a companion bill today in the House. I look forward to working with them this year and with the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member, to incorporate this legislation once again into the comprehensive 6-year reauthorization of the surface transportation bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, today I am introducing the Native American Capital Formation and Economic Development Act of 2003. Before the Europeans landed on these shores, Indian nations were vigorous and vital:…
Mr. President, today I am introducing the Native American Capital Formation and Economic Development Act of 2003.
Before the Europeans landed on these shores, Indian nations were vigorous and vital: tribal governments functioned well; tribal cultures and religions flourished; and tribal economies were strong.
Over time tribal institutions failed when the independence they had known were stifled by the Federal Government.
Since 1970, Indian self-determination has assisted the tribes in rebuilding their governments and resurrecting their economies.
The bill I am introducing today will foster real self-determination and create a Native-capitalized development assistance corporation.
If enacted, the tribes themselves will be the financiers and shareholders of the Native American Capital Development Corporation which will focus on mortgage lending and Indian home ownership; provide assistance to Native financial institutions; and work to create a secondary market in Indian mortgages.
The corporation will include the Native American Economies Diagnostic Studies Fund to partner with tribes to conduct diagnostic studies of their economies and identify the inhibitors to greater levels of private sector investment and job creation. Ultimately the corporation and the tribes will work to remove those inhibitors.
The corporation's Native American Economic Incubation Center Fund will work with participating tribes to channel development assistance to those tribes with a demonstrated commitment to sound economic and political policies; good governance; and practices that create increased levels of economic growth and job creation.
It is my expectation that there will be much debate generated by this legislation which I consider a good thing. I expect to hold hearings on this important legislation in the weeks ahead.
I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important bill.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Indian Land Leasing Act of 2003 to make routine changes to title 25 of the United States Code and to assist economic activity on Indian lands by liberalizing the Indian land leasing process.
Federal law requires tribal landowners to seek the approval of the Secretary of the Interior to lease their lands and further restricts the lease term to a period of 25 years.
This legal framework is an obstacle in the path of the tribes and their members, and year after year Indian tribes are forced to seek the Committee on Indian Affairs' assistance in extending the lease term to 99 years.
Over the years not fewer than 38 tribes have come to Congress and secured 99-year lease authority.
At the tribes' request, this bill will extend 99-year lease authority to the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, the Yavapai- Prescott Tribe, the Yurok Tribe, and the Hopland Band of Pomo Indians to the long list of tribes that have already secured similar extensions.
The bill also provides 99-year lease authority for tribes that wish to do so without the prior approval of the Secretary.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this modest but important legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Native American Energy Development and Self-Determination Act of 2003.
Our Nation is about to be embroiled in war in the Middle East and the markets are anxious about the military action. As a result, world oil prices are soaring and now are nearly $40 per barrel.
The economic repercussions to everyday Americans of high oil prices cannot be overlooked. Industries reliant on cheap energy will contract and people will lose their jobs.
The single working mom who commutes and delivers her child to daycare will be paying much higher prices at the pump. Shoes for her kids and payments into the college fund will have to wait.
The family-owned construction firm will be forced to let people go. Families will be disrupted.
One obvious answer to our energy future is in more vigorous domestic production.
For far too long Indian-owned energy resources have been overlooked and untapped.
There are nearly 90 tribes that own significant energy resources-- both renewable and nonrenewable--and with rare exception these tribes want to develop them.
The Interior Department estimates that 25 percent of oil and less than 20 percent of natural gas reserves on Indian land have been developed.
The bill I am introducing will provide financial assistance, technical expertise, and regulatory relief to the tribes in their efforts to manage and market their resources.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, today I am introducing the Indian Technical Corrections Act of 2003 to provide routine and noncontroversial amendments to Federal statutes affecting Indian tribes and Indian people.
The vast majority of these amendments were included in legislation in the last session of Congress that failed to be enacted.
Though modest, this bill provides real relief to the many tribes that seek Congress' assistance.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, today I am introducing the Fallen Law Enforcement Officers and Firefighters Flag Memorial Act of 2003.
This bill would help honor the sacrifice of the men and women who lost their lives in the line of duty by providing Capitol-flown flags to the families of deceased law enforcement officers and firefighters.
Under this legislation, the family of a deceased law enforcement officer can request from the Attorney General that a flag be flown over the U.S. Capitol in honor of the slain officer. The Department of Justice shall pay the cost of the flags, including shipping, out of discretionary grant funds, and provide them to the victim's family.
As a former deputy sheriff, I know firsthand the risks which law enforcement officers face every day on the frontlines protecting our communities. I also have great appreciation, as the cochair of the Congressional Fire Caucus, for the service that our Nation's firefighters provide, day in and day out, and that all too often, they end up sacrificing their lives while saving others.
I believe providing a Capitol-flown flag is a fitting way to show our appreciation for fallen officers and firefighters who make the ultimate sacrifice. It also lets their families know that Congress and the Nation are grateful for their loved one's service.
I ask unanimous consent that the Fallen Law Enforcement Officers and Firefighters Flag Memorial Act of 2003 be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Craig Thomas to introduce legislation that would exclude loan repayments made through the National Health Service Corps from taxable income. I am pleased that…
Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Craig Thomas to introduce legislation that would exclude loan repayments made through the National Health Service Corps from taxable income. I am pleased that Senators Leahy, Smith, Wyden, Snowe, Durbin, Hagel, Roberts, and Chambliss are also cosponsoring this important legislation.
There have been many developments in the area of health care in the last few years from managed care reform, to increases in biomedical research, the mapping of the human genome, and the use of exciting new technologies in both rural and urban areas such as telemedicine. In fact, it seems that almost every day we hear of astounding new scientific breakthroughs. But unfortunately, while we are making great
strides in the quality of health care, we are losing ground on the access to health care for so many.
The sad truth is that there are currently 38.7 million Americans without health insurance coverage--9.2 million of whom are children. In Washington, before the recession, 13.3 percent of the population, and 155,000 children, lacked health insurance. That is undoubtedly higher today.
Access to health insurance for the uninsured is of the utmost importance--we know that at the very least, health insurance means the difference between timely and delayed treatment and at worst between life and death. In fact, the uninsured are four times as likely as the insured to delay or forego needed care--and uninsured children are six times as likely as insured children to go without needed medical care.
But even insurance isn't enough if there are no available providers. Hospitals and other health care providers across the country are facing an increasingly uncertain future. The sad truth is that it is increasingly more difficult to recruit health care providers to work with underserved communities--especially in rural areas. In addition to economic pressures, rural areas must overcome the environmental issues involved with recruiting a doctor who may have been raised, educated, and trained in an urban setting.
The National Health Service Corps was created in 1970 by Senator Warren Magnuson, one of the most distinguished Senators to come from Washington State. He saw the need to put primary care clinicians in rural communities and inner-city neighborhoods, and developed this program to fill that need.
Since then, the Corps has placed over 22,000 health professionals in rural or urban health professions shortage areas. There is no doubt that National Health Service Corps has been extremely successful. In fact, the most recent available data show that more than 70 percent of providers continued to provide services to underserved communities after their Corps obligation was fulfilled--80 percent of these health care providers stayed in the community in which they had originally been placed.
During the last August recess, I had the opportunity to travel throughout Washington State and held 15 community discussions on health care. I met patients who would not have access to health services but for the providers there through the Corps and I met many doctors who have been living in our rural communities for years because of their Corps' placements. And because it has been so successful--right now in Washington State there are 75 physicians or other health professionals working in underserved areas that would not otherwise be here--we must do everything possible to support this program.
Under current law, the National Health Service Corps provides scholarships, loan repayments, and stipends for clinicians who agree to serve in urban and rural communities with severe shortages of health care providers. In 1986 the IRS ruled that all payments made under the program are considered taxable income. Understanding the immediate detriment to scholarship recipients, who were forced to pay the tax out of their own pockets, Congress eliminated the scholarship tax in 2001. And while the scholarship program is now not considered taxable income to the IRS, the loan repayments and stipends are.
By statute, the current loan program awards also include a tax assistance payment equal to 39 percent of the loan repayment amount, which is to be used by the recipient offset his or tax liability resulting from the loan repayment ``income.'' This means that nearly 40 percent of the Federal loan repayment budget goes to pay taxes on the loan repayment ``income'' alone. If these Federal payments were not taxed, and the funding was freed up, more health professions students could take advantage of the loan repayment program, and could be placed in shortage areas, thereby increasing access to health care in both urban and rural areas.
This is not a new problem. The tax burden that accompanies the National Health Service Corps loan payments is a significant deterrent to increasing the number of clinicians enrolling in the Corps. I do not want to see a situation where, as happened several years ago, over 300 applicants actually left underserved areas because the Corps could not fully fund the loan repayment program.
The legislation we are introducing today, the National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act, would address this disincentive, making the Corps available to more medical and health professionals, and thereby bringing more providers into underserved areas. If loan repayments are excluded from taxation, the National Health Service Corps will have greater resources to provide aid to health professionals seeking loan repayment, and will be able to increase the number of providers in underserved areas.
There is no doubt that strengthening the National Health Service Corps is a win-win situation. Corps scholarships help finance education for future primary care providers interested in serving the underserved. In return, graduates serve those communities where the need for primary health care is greatest.
The bill is supported by over 20 national organizations including the National Rural Health Association, the National Association of Community Health Centers, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American Medical Student Association. I am especially pleased that the Washington State Medical Association is supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the complete list be included in the Record after my statement.
I understand that there are no easy solutions to the health care problems we are facing right now. But we need to do something--even if it is taking small steps forward, and come in at this problem from many different angles.
I urge my colleagues to look at this bill and to join us in expanding this vitally important and immediately successful program.
Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator Warner, Senator Hollings, Senator Reed, Senator Daschle, Senator Lieberman, Senator Clinton, Senator Sarbanes, and Senator Landrieu to introduce…
Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator Warner, Senator Hollings, Senator Reed, Senator Daschle, Senator Lieberman, Senator Clinton, Senator Sarbanes, and Senator Landrieu to introduce the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response, SAFER, Act. This legislation will help to remedy a critical shortage in the fire service and help ensure that America's firefighters have the staffing they need to safely do their jobs.
Every day approximately one million firefighters put their lives on the line to protect the people of our great Nation. I firmly believe that in recognition of that fact, our Nation has an obligation to ensure that the brave men and women of the fire service have the tools, the training, and the staffing they need to do their jobs safely.
In recent years, the Federal Government has recognized that it can and should be a better partner with local firefighters. In 2000, Senator DeWine, Senator Levin, Senator Warner, and I worked successfully to help create the FIRE Act. This law stood as the first Federal grant program explicitly designed to help fire departments throughout America obtain better equipment, improved training, and needed personnel. Since September 11, 2001, Congress and the administration have provided billions of dollars to help local firefighters purchase equipment and training to respond to acts of terrorism, accidental fires, chemical spills, and natural disasters. Over the last 2 years, the Federal FIRE Act grant initiative has provided nearly half a billion dollars in direct assistance to local fire departments across the country and the FIRE Act will provide another $750 million this year. We are beginning to significantly improve the quality of the equipment available to firefighters in every State and in communities large and small. Unfortunately, the FIRE Act has not improved staffing conditions for America's fire service. Severe staffing shortages still plague departments across the country.
Currently two-thirds of all fire departments operate with inadequate staffing. And the consequences are often tragic. According to testimony by Harold Schaitberger, General President of the International Association of Firefighters, presented before the
Senate Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee on October 11, 2001, understaffing has caused or contributed to firefighter deaths in Memphis, Tennessee; Worcester, Massachusetts; Keokuk, Iowa; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Chesapeake, Virginia; Stockton, California; Lexington, Kentucky; Buffalo, New York; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Washington, D.C. In each case, firefighters went into dangerous situations without the support they needed and they paid the ultimate price.
The unfortunate reality is that our local communities have not been able to maintain the level of staffing necessary to ensure the safety of our firefighters or the public. Since 1970, the number of firefighters as a percentage of the U.S. workforce has steadily declined and the budget crises that our state and local governments are enduring has made matters worse. Across the country today, firefighter staffing is being cut and fire stations are even being closed because of state and local budget shortfalls. All of this at a time when the threats of terrorism are placing unprecedented demands on our fire service.
According to a ``Needs Assessment Study'' recently released by the U.S. Fire Administration, USFA, and the National Fire Protection Association, NFPA, understaffing contributes to enormous problems. For example, USFA and NFPA have found that only 11% of our Nation's fire departments have the personnel and equipment they need to respond to a building collapse involving 50 or more occupants. The USFA and NFPA also found that there are routine problems that threaten the health and safety of our first responders. In small and medium-sized cities, firefighters are too often compelled to respond to emergencies without sufficient manpower to protect those on the ground. More often than not, firefighters in too many of our communities respond to fires with fewer than the four firefighters per truck that is considered to be the minimum to ensure firefighter safety.
The USFA/NFPA study also suggests that shortages of personnel prevent many firefighters from taking time off to receive training and too few departments can afford to hire dedicated training staff. As a result, nearly three-quarters of all fire departments cannot comply with EPA and OSHA regulations that require formal hazardous materials response training for front-line firefighters.
The SAFER Act is a national commitment to hire the firefighters necessary to protect the American people from the consequences of terrorist attacks and from more ordinary, but often equally devastating, events. This legislation will put 75,000 new firefighters on America's streets over the next 7 years and will help provide Americans with the level of protection they need and deserve.
As I have said before, just as we have called up the National Guard to meet the increased need for more manpower in the military, we need to make a national commitment to hire firefighters to protect the American people here at home. In these difficult times, it is both necessary and proper for us to send for reinforcements for our domestic defenders. The SAFER Act will make that commitment.
In closing let me say that this legislation honors America's firefighters. It acknowledges the men and women who charge up the stairs while everybody else is running down them. But it does more than that. This legislation is an investment in America's security, an investment to ensure the safety of our firefighter as well as American families and their homes and businesses.
Both the International Association of Firefighters and the International Association of Fire Chiefs have expressed their strong support for this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join those of us who have introduced this measure today.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill of critical importance to our Nation's economic well-being and the security of our borders: the Border Infrastructure and Technology Modernization Act.…
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill of critical importance to our Nation's economic well-being and the security of our borders: the Border Infrastructure and Technology Modernization Act.
No American border has under gone a comprehensive infrastructure overhaul since 1986, when Senator Dennis DeConcini of Arizona and I put forth a $357 million effort to modernize the southwest border. That bill pertained only to the southwest border, and a great deal was change since 1986.
More importantly, much has changed since September 11, 2001. It is now critical that we look at the big picture and give our northern and southwestern borders the resources they need to address security vulnerabilities and facilitate the flow of trade.
Two years ago, the General Services Administration completed a comprehensive assessment of infrastructure needs on the southwestern and northern borders of the United States. This assessment found that overhauling both borders would require $784 million.
Since the publication of that assessment in February 2001, many of the needs identified remain outstanding. Many have grown, and new needs have
arisen as the task of making border trade flow faster has become more complicated in the face of unprecedented security concerns.
In response to our Nation's heightened security concerns, we created the Department of Homeland Security, an agency affecting virtually every Federal entity involved in border operations. Congress must give this new Department adequate resources and tools to achieve the necessary balance between security and trade considerations. The Border Infrastructure and Technology Modernization Act proposes a number of measures meant to increase the speed at which trade crosses the border as well as beefing up security at vulnerable points on our land borders.
In the recently passed omnibus appropriations bill, I secured legislative language asking the General Services Administration, in cooperation with the other border agencies involved, to complete an updated assessment of needs on our borders. The information contained in this assessment will provide a blueprint for comprehensive, targeted improvements to border infrastructure and technology. The bill I am introducing today provides $100 million per year for 5 years to implement these improvements.
Congress has already passed legislation to improve security at airports and seaports, but we have not yet addressed the needs of our busiest ports, located on the United States' northern and southwestern land borders. Traditionally, tighter security requirements have come at the expense of efficient commerce across our borders. With the improvements we are proposing today, we mean to move toward a day when we can say that higher security does not penalize trade.
America's two biggest trading partners are not across an ocean--they lie to the north and south of our country. In the past decade, U.S.- Canada trade has doubled, and in the same time period, trade between the United States and Mexico tripled. At the same time, our infrastructure is weakest on our land borders, and we must act quickly and decisively to prevent terrorists from exploiting this weakness.
To address this threat, the Border Infrastructure and Technology Modernization Act provides for a coordinated Land Border Security Plan, including cooperation between Federal State and local entities involved at our borders, as well as the private sector.
When it comes to security, everybody has a role to play, not just the government. We must enlist the help of the private sector to address security concerns on our borders. Trade and industry have made this country the economic powerhouse it is today, and we must fully involve them in protecting our country through government trade and industry partnership programs.
The U.S. Customs Service has already started this process. I commend them for their quick action after the September 11 terrorist attacks in enlisting the support of private industry by quickly developing the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, C-TPAT. We need to expand these programs, especially along the northern and southwestern borders. This bill authorizes an additional $30 million and additional staff to accomplish this task.
Finally, equipment and technology alone will not solve the trade and security problems on our borders. The border agencies of the Department of Homeland Security need sufficient personnel levels, and training to ensure the implementation and use of modern technology. I am pleased that the administration has taken the first step to meet this objective by announcing that they will add 1,700 new inspectors to the Bureau of Customs and Border Security of the Department of Homeland Security.
The Border Infrastructure and Technology Modernization Act increases the number of inspectors and support staff in this bureau by an additional 200 each year for 5 years. This bill also adds 100 more special agents and support staff each year for 5 years to the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security.
I am pleased to introduced this bill today to devote greater resources to maximizing the economic possibilities of the trade flowing across our borders, while addressing the security vulnerabilities on our land borders. I am convinced that these goals are not mutually exclusive, but instead must be realized in concert.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, today I am introducing the Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act of 2003. This is a simple bill that would repeal the income tax increase on Social Security benefits that went into…
Mr. President, today I am introducing the Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act of 2003. This is a simple bill that would repeal the income tax increase on Social Security benefits that went into effect in 1993.
When the Social Security system was created, beneficiaries did not pay Federal income tax on their benefits. However, in 1983, Congress passed legislation that changed all this. The 1983 law requires that 50 percent of Social Security benefits be taxed for senior whose incomes reached a certain level. The revenue this tax generated was then credited to the Social Security trust funds. Although I wasn't in Congress back in 1983, some argued that these changes were necessary because it kept Social Security taxes more in line with taxes on private pensions and because it shored up the Social Security system.
In 1993, President Clinton proposed that 85 percent of Social Security benefits be taxable for seniors meeting certain income thresholds, and that this additional money be allocated for the Medicare Program. Unfortunately, Congress passes this provision as part of a larger bill, which President Clinton then signed into law.
I was a Member of the House of Representatives at this time. I voted against this bill and didn't support this provision. This tax is unfair to our senior citizens who worked year, after year, after year, paying into Social Security, only to be faced with higher taxed once they retired.
The bill I am introducing would repeal the 85 percent tax, and would replace the funding that has been going to the Medicare Program with general funds. This tax was unfair when it was implemented in 1993, and it is unfair today. I hope my Senate colleagues can support this legislation to remove this burdensome tax on our seniors.
Mr. President, I rise today with several of my senate colleagues to introduce the Arming Cargo Pilots Against Terrorism Act. This bill closes a loophole to better protect the homeland against terrorists.
As a result of the airplane hijackings on September 11, 2001, Congress took the appropriate action to prevent from ever happening again the use of an airliner as a missile and weapon of mass destruction and murder. Last year, large majorities of the Senate and House of Representatives voted to arm both cargo and passenger pilots who volunteered for a stringent training proram as part of the homeland security bill.
Arming these pilots served to protect the pilots and aircrew, passengers and those on the ground from ever being victims of another airline hijacking. It was the right thing to do. However, during conference of the homeland security bill the cargo pilots were yanked from the bill. This bill we introduce today will arm cargo pilots and close the loophole created when they were left out last year.
It is true that cargo airlines rarely have passengers, but that is no reason to disregard and ignore the safety of those cargo pilots and the aircrafts they control. Indeed, on occasions they do carry passengers, and sometimes they transport couriers and guards of some of the cargo being transported. Too many times these couriers and guards are armed while the pilots are unarmed. After September 11, that simply does not make sense.
As well, physical security around too many of our air cargo facilities and terminals is not up to the standard it should be. This lax in security has allowed stowaways a free pass in climbing aboard cargo airplanes for a free ride. Just a few months ago a woman in Fargo, ND, rushed onto a United Parcel Service plane trying to get to California. Fortunately she was caught. I guarantee that many have successfully sneaked onto cargo airplanes. And many more will continue to try. This is further evidence as to why we need to act to allow these cargo pilots to defend themselves and the cockpit.
Cargo pilots are not armed and they will never have Federal air marshals. Cargo planes do not have trained flight attendants or alert passengers to fend off hijackers. Cargo planes do not have reinforced cockpit doors, and some do not have any doors at all. Cargo areas of airports are not as secure as a passenger areas, and thousands of personnel have access to the aircraft. Finally, stowaways sometimes find their way aboard cargo aircraft. And in the future one might be a terrorist.
There are no logical reasons to exclude cargo pilots. Simply saying that since they carry no passengers unlike a passenger airliner is not a good enough reason. Cargo planes are just as big as--if not bigger than--passenger planes. They can carry larger loads of fuel and frequently carry hazardous materials, including chemicals and biological products. A cargo airplane causes just as much damage when used as a weapon as did the passenger planes hijacked on September 11.
We cannot allow what happened on September 11 to ever happen again. This loophole of excluding cargo pilots from being able to protect themselves and their aircraft and the public must be removed. This is the right thing to do, and I ask my Senate colleagues for their support.
I ask unanimous consent that this bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Domenici, Dorgan, Kyl, Feinstein, Murkowski, Burns, and Murray to introduce the Border Infrastructure and Technology Modernization Act. For most of us,…
Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Domenici, Dorgan, Kyl, Feinstein, Murkowski, Burns, and Murray to introduce the Border Infrastructure and Technology Modernization Act. For most of us, this is not a new issue. I have worked closely with many of my colleagues to address concerns regarding the protection of our Nation's borders, particularly the problems associated with illegal immigration.
The bill we are introducing today addresses border infrastructure, to ensure that our Nation's borders, both southern and northern, are as secure and up to date as possible. This bill will authorize. the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to address staffing shortages and hire additional agents, inspectors, and support staff. It will also authorize several studies and demonstration programs to improve infrastructure, security, facilitate trade, and expand the use of technology along the borders.
Cross-border commerce suffers greatly due to backups at our ports of entry. Two and three hour delays hinder the transport of goods from Mexico into the United States. Improving infrastructure at our ports of entry will increase our capability to screen trucks and individuals coming into the country in a more efficient manner, reducing the backups along the border and improving the free flow of commerce.
As undocumented aliens take increasingly desperate measures to cross our border with Mexico, the burden borne by States along the southwestern border continues to grow. The Federal Government's attempt to stem illegal immigration in Texas and California has made it increasingly difficult to cross the border in these States and has created a funnel effect, giving Arizona the dubious distinction of being the location of choice for illegal border crossings.
Reports suggest that at least one in three of the illegal border crossers arrested traversing the U.S.-Mexico border are stopped in Arizona. Last year approximately 320 people died in the
desert trying to cross the border. Additionally, the number of attacks on National Park Service officers has increased in recent years. Property crimes are rampant along the border, leaving Arizona with the highest per capita auto theft rate in the Nation. Times have become so desperate that vigilante groups have begun to form with the goal of doing the job the Federal Government is failing to do.
We must do all we can to improve the ports of entry along our borders with both our northern and our southern neighbors. Technology is the key to that goal, and this bill takes a big step toward ensuring that technological needs are assessed and that technology is improved.
There are between 7-9 million people in this country illegally. Many of these people entered our country legally but have overstayed their visas. By upgrading the technology for our ports of entry and further developing the entry-exit system we will have a way to better monitor these individuals. During this year's appropriations bill, I sponsored an amendment along with Senators Kyl and Feinstein to restore $165 million to entry-exit system and help the INS establish four pilot projects on the borders to effectively track and monitor immigration. This bill and the amendment we passed recently are both important ways to increase the resources available to the border.
Beyond the improvement of infrastructure, technology and security along the border, we must also address illegal immigration through a guest worker program. As long as there are jobs to be had on this side of the border, people will continue to attempt to cross illegally, and our national security will remain at risk.
I urge my colleagues to move expeditiously on this important piece of legislation, in order to ensure that in a time of new global threats, our Nation's borders are as safe as possible and American citizens are protected.
Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation on behalf of thousands of Federal firefighters and emergency response personnel worldwide who, at great risk to their own personal health and safety,…
Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation on behalf of thousands of Federal firefighters and emergency response personnel worldwide who, at great risk to their own personal health and safety, protect America's defense, our veterans, Federal wildlands, and national treasures. Although the majority of these important Federal employees work for the Department of Defense, Federal firefighters are also employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the U.S. Park Service. From first response emergency care services on military installations around the world to front-line defense against raging forest fires here at home, we call on these brave men and women to protect our national interests.
Yet under Federal law, compensation and retirement benefits are not provided to Federal employees who suffer from occupational illnesses unless they can specify the conditions of employment which caused their disease. This onerous requirement makes it nearly impossible for Federal firefighters, who suffer from occupational diseases, to receive fair and just compensation or retirement benefits. The bureaucratic nightmare they must endure is burdensome, unnecessary, and in many cases, overwhelming. It is ironic and unjust that the very people we call on to protect our Federal interests are not afforded the very best health care and retirement benefits our Federal Government has to offer.
Today, I introduced legislation, the Federal Fire Fighters Fairness Act of 2003, which amends the Federal Employees Compensation Act to create a presumptive disability for firefighters who become disabled by heart and lung disease, cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma, and infectious diseases like tuberculosis and hepatitis. Disabilities related to the cancers, heart, lung, and infectious diseases enumerated in this important legislation would be considered job related for purposes of workers compensation and disability retirement--entitling those affected to the health care coverage and retirement benefits that they deserve.
Too frequently, the poisonous gases, toxic byproducts, asbestos, and other hazardous substances with which Federal firefighters and emergency response personnel come in contact, rob them of their health livelihood, and professional careers. The Federal Government should not rob them of necessary benefits. Thirty-eight States have already enacted a similar disability presumption law for Federal firefighters' counterparts working in similar capacities on the State and local levels.
The effort behind the Federal Firefighters Fairness Act of 2003 marks a significant advancement for firefighter health and safety. Since September 11, there has been an enhanced appreciation for the risks that firefighters and emergency response personnel face every day. Federal firefighters deserve our highest commendation and it is time to do the right thing for these important Federal employees.
The job of firefighting continues to be complex and dangerous. The nationwide increase in the use of hazardous materials, the recent rise in both natural and manmade disasters, and the threat of terrorism pose new threats to firefighter health and safety. The Federal Fire Fighters Fairness Act of 2003 will help protect the lives of our firefighters and it will provide them with a vehicle to secure their health and safety.
I urge my colleagues to embrace this bipartisan effort and support the Federal Fire Fighters Fairness Act of 2003 on behalf of our Nation's Federal firefighters and emergency response personnel.
Show 9 more
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill designed to provide assistance to vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries: the Medicare Improvements for Special Needs Beneficiaries Act of 2003. This…
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill designed to provide assistance to vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries: the Medicare Improvements for Special Needs Beneficiaries Act of 2003. This legislation will improve access to health care for frail and elderly Medicare beneficiaries who reside in nursing homes or their local communities.
Approximately 6 million Medicare beneficiaries are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid coverage. Known as ``dual eligibles,'' these beneficiaries are the most vulnerable group of Medicare recipients. They are elderly or disabled and poor. Many have serious health concerns and complex medical, social, and long-term care needs. As a result, dual eligibles represent a disproportionate share of Medicare spending.
To address the concerns of dual eligibles, a small number of health plans specialize in providing quality coordinated care to frail, elderly Medicare beneficiaries through demonstrations and the Medicare+Choice Program. These specialized plans include innovative clinical models of care that improve care and health outcomes while reducing medical costs. Today, approximately 25,000 Medicare beneficiaries, most of whom reside in nursing homes, receive their health care through these specialized plans.
Through these plans, physicians and nurse practitioners work together to provide as much primary, preventive, and acute care as possible on site--in a nursing home facility or in the patient's home. For those beneficiaries residing in nursing homes, this means fewer trips to the emergency room; for those still living at home, it delays nursing home placement. If enrollees can be treated successfully without a trip to the hospital or placement in a nursing home, they remain healthier and costs to the Medicare Program are reduced.
Currently, these specialized plans are facing regulatory barriers that prevent them from becoming permanent Medicare+Choice Program options. The Medicare Improvements for Special Needs Beneficiaries Act provides improved beneficiary access to Medicare+Choice plans by removing these barriers and allowing plans to specialize in serving dual eligible, institutionalized, and other frail beneficiaries. Specifically, the bill would allow a special Medicare+Choice program designation so these plans may continue to target enrollment to the frail elderly and provide appropriate health care to this vulnerable population.
Both the President and Members of Congress have stated their commitments to improving services provided to Medicare beneficiaries. In fact, when President Bush visited Minneapolis last July, he expressed his strong support for the Evercare program by saying that ``government should act to strengthen these private health insurance options, not replace them. By relying on competition and patient's choice and innovative programs like Evercare, we will protect our seniors now, and offer many new lifesaving services to seniors in the future and preserve our private health care system.''
These specialized programs are fulfilling the original promise of the Medicare+Choice Program to not only protect our Medicare beneficiaries but, in addition, these program improve health care quality and lower health care costs. This legislation is a no-cost way to continue this effort. Evercare plans serve a unique and valuable purpose for a vulnerable segment of our society. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important bill.
Mr. President, I would like to express my strong support for the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003, NAISA. During the 107th Congress, I introduced S. 1034, the Great Lakes Ecology…
Mr. President, I would like to express my strong support for the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003, NAISA.
During the 107th Congress, I introduced S. 1034, the Great Lakes Ecology Protection Act which sought to curb the influx of invasive species into the Great Lakes. This is an immense task, as more then 87 nonindigenous aquatic species have been accidentally introduced into the Great Lakes in the past century. I am proud to say that this bill had strong bipartisan support with 12 Great Lakes Senators as original cosponsors.
Today, I am proud to join Senator Levin as an original cosponsor of NIASA which will provide a national strategy for preventing invasive species from being introduced in the Great Lakes and our Nation's waters. I am pleased that NIASA incorporates many of the ideas from the Great Lakes Ecology Protection Act in formulating a national standard.
Invasive species have had a devastating economic and ecological impact on the United States. They have already damaged the Great Lakes in a number of ways. They have destroyed thousands of fish and threatened our clean drinking water.
For example, Lake Michigan once housed the largest self-producing lake trout fishery in the entire world. The invasive sea lamprey, which was introduced from ballast water almost 80 years ago, has contributed greatly to the decline of trout and whitefish in the Great Lakes by feeding on and killing native trout species.
Today, lake trout must be stocked because they cannot naturally reproduce in the lake. Many Great Lakes States have had to place severe restrictions on catching yellow perch because invasive species such as the zebra mussel disrupt the Great Lakes' ecosystem and compete with yellow perch for food. The zebra mussel's filtration also increases water clarity, which may be making is easier for predators to prey upon the yellow perch. Moreover, tiny organisms like zooplankton that help form the base of the Great Lakes food chain, have declined due to consumption by exploding populations of zebra mussels.
We have made progress on preventing the spread of invasive species, but we have not yet solved this problem. NIASA will create a mandatory national ballast water management program to prevent the introduction of invasive species into our waters, as well as, encourage the development of new ballast treatment technology to eliminate invasive species. NIASA also will greatly increase research funding for these treatment and prevention technologies, and provide necessary funding and resources for invasive species rapid response plans. In addition, the bill will increase outreach and education to recreational boaters and the general public on how to prevent the spread of invasive species.
As Members of the U.S. Congress, we have a responsibility to share in the stewardship of our Nation's natural resources. As a Great Lakes Senator, I feel a particularly strong responsibility to protect a resource that is not only a source of clean drinking water for more than 30 million people in the Great Lakes, but is vital to Michigan's economy and environment. I am proud to support a bill that will provide innovative solutions and necessary resources to this longstanding environmental problem, and will also protect our precious water resources for the enjoyment and benefit of future generation of Americans.
Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senators Levin, Collins, Reed, Voinovich, and Stabenow, to introduce the National Invasive Species Council Act--a bill to permanently establish the…
Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senators Levin, Collins, Reed, Voinovich, and Stabenow, to introduce the National Invasive Species Council Act--a bill to permanently establish the National Invasive Species Council. The National Invasive Species Council was established by an Executive order so that the Federal Government can better coordinate to combat the economic, ecologic, and health threat of invasive species.
Invasive species are a national threat. Estimates of the annual economic damages caused by invasive species in this Nation are as high as $137 billion. To combat the serious threats posed by invasive species, we need Federal coordination and planning. Our bill would provide just that--on a permanent basis. Under this legislation, the Secretaries of State, Commerce, Transportation, Agriculture, Health & Human Services, Interior, Defense, and Treasury, along with the Administrators of EPA and USAID, would continue to work together through the Council to develop a National Invasive Species Management Plan.
Though the Council can continue to operate and develop invasive species management plans as they currently do, the GAO reported last year that implementing the national invasive species management plan is difficult because the Council does not have a congressional mandate to act. GAO also reported that most of the agencies that have responsibilities under the National Invasive Species Management Plan have been slow to complete activities by the due date established under the plan and the agencies do not always act in a coordinated manner. As my colleagues who are cosponsoring this bill know, invasive species are too great of a problem to be left unmanaged.
The duties of the Council are generally to coordinate Federal activities in an effective, complementary, cost-efficient manner; update the National Invasive Species Management Plan; ensure that Federal agencies implement the management plan; and develop recommendations for international cooperation. Agencies that do not implement the recommendations of the National Invasive Species Management Plan must report to Congress as to why the recommendations were not implemented. The Council is directed to develop guidance for Federal agencies on prevention, control, and eradication of invasive species so that Federal programs and actions do not increase the risk of invasion or spread nonindigenous species. And finally, the bill also establishes an Invasive Species Advisory Committee to the Council.
Ultimately, with a congressional mandate, the Council can enhance its effectiveness and better protect our environment from invasive species. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this measure so that the Federal Government can improve its response to invasive species threat.
I am pleased to rise today to introduce the National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act with my colleague from Washington, Ms. Cantwell. Specifically, this legislation will exclude loan…
I am pleased to rise today to introduce the National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act with my colleague from Washington, Ms. Cantwell. Specifically, this legislation will exclude loan repayments made through National Health Service Corps, NHSC, program from taxable income. Enactment of the National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act would increase the amount of Federal dollars available so more students could participate in the NHSC program.
Under current law, the NHSC provides scholarships, loan repayments, and stipends for clinicians who agree to serve in national designated underserved urban and rural communities. The tax law changes in 1986 resulted in the IRS ruling that all NHSC payments were taxable. Congress eliminated the tax on the scholarship in 2001, but the loan repayments and stipends continue to be taxed.
To assist loan repayment recipients with their tax burden, the NHSC loan program includes an additional payment equal to 39 percent of the loan repayment amount so the loan repayment recipient can pay his or her taxes. Close to 40 percent of the NHSC Federal loan repayment budget goes to pay taxes on the loan repayment ``income.'' The current situation should not be allowed to continue. Given the fiscal restraints we are facing, we must ensure that Federal dollars are spent efficiently and effectively. It is obvious that today's NHSC loan repayment structure does not meet that goal. Our legislation resolves this issue.
For over 30 years, the National Health Service Corps, NHSC, program has literally been a lifeline for many underserved communities across the country that otherwise would not have a heath care provider. I know this program is critically important to my State of Wyoming and to many other rural States that have difficulties recruiting and retaining primary health care clinicians.
There are 2,800 health professional shortage areas, 740 mental health shortage areas and 1,200 dental health shortage areas now designated across the country. However, the NHSC program is meeting less than 13 percent of the current need for primary care providers and less than 6 percent of need for mental health and dental services. The National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act would increase
the number of students in the program and allow more providers to be placed in these shortage areas.
The National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act is crucial to the future well-being of many of our rural communities. I strongly urge all my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to designate the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge as wilderness. America's dependence on foreign oil is an urgent and stubborn problem. But the…
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to designate the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge as wilderness.
America's dependence on foreign oil is an urgent and stubborn problem. But the answer isn't in the ground. It's in our heads. We have to apply the genius of America to engineer a solution to energy independence, not hope that we will magically find one in the deposits under Alaska.
The facts on this are clear. Alaska has at a most 6 month supply of oil--not a drop of which will be available for a decade. The United States Energy Information Administration--part of the Bush administration--itself concluded that full development of the Refuge would reduce our projected dependence on foreign oil from 62 to 60 percent at the very most, and not until 2020.
For that, is it worth forever losing a national treasure, one of our last great wild places? I say no. Instead, I say yes to a smart, forward-looking strategy to wean our economy off its addiction to foreign oil without sacrificing our natural treasures.
Despite my colleagues arguments to the contrary, I believe it is finally established that there is no way--no way--to drill in the Arctic without disrupting and essentially destroying that precious place. For too long, drilling advocates have attempted to raise questions about the impacts of drilling. It is time for the facts to carry the day.
In fact, just today, the National Academies of Science released a report detailing the cumulative impacts of oil development on Alaska's North Slope. The NAS not only found that Arctic oil development has adversely impacted populations of caribou, birds and bowhead whales-- more importantly, they said that future drilling would pose grave threats to the Arctic's environmental health. As the report stated in a section entitled ``The Essential Trade-Off,'' the question for Congress is whether the available oil is worth the ``inevitable accumulated undesirable effects.'' With so little impact on our oil dependence predicted, the answer is clearly no.
In every poll, we see that the majority of Americans oppose ruining the Arctic for oil. And, as we established last year, the majority of the U.S. Senate agrees with them. Once and for all, let's respect that desire, and let's protect this precious place. Let's pass this bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator Levin and Senator Snowe in introducing the ``National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003.'' The waters of the United States continue to…
Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator Levin and Senator Snowe in introducing the ``National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003.''
The waters of the United States continue to face threats from aquatic invasive species. Invasive species take both an economic and an environmental toll. The United States and Canada are spending $14 million a year just to try to control sea lamprey, a species that has invaded Lake Champlain and the Great Lakes. The environmental costs are also staggering. Invasive species usually have high reproductive rates, disperse easily, and can tolerate a wide range of environmental conditions, making them very difficult to eradicate. They often lack predators in their new environment and out-compete native species for prey or breeding sites.
The legislation we are introducing today will build on programs established over the last decade and focus much of our attention and resources on preventing invasive species from entering our aquatic ecosystems. This legislation establishes a mandatory ballast water management program for the entire country; makes federal funds and resources available for rapid response to the introduction of invasive species and for prevention, control and research.
Increased funding and resources for dispersal barrier projects and research to prevent the interbasin transfer of
organisms is of particular importance in my State of Vermont. We, along with New York, are home to one of this country's most beautiful lakes-- Lake Champlain. However, zebra mussels, Eurasian water milfoil, water chestnuts, and sea lamprey have invaded Lake Champlain and are having a devastating impact. Like most who visit Lake Champlain, these species want to call it home, but we cannot compromise the health of the lake. Examining the feasibility and effectiveness of a dispersal barrier in the Lake Champlain Canal to control the dispersal of invasive species in the lake is another avenue toward preventing further destructive dispersal of these species.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee and in the Senate to move this important legislation forward.
Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to improve the deplorable housing situation in the valley region of the Texas border with Mexico. Our colonias are among the most distressed areas…
Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to improve the deplorable housing situation in the valley region of the Texas border with Mexico. Our colonias are among the most distressed areas of the country.
In 1993 when I ran for the Senate, I visited with a woman named Elida Bocanegra who led me through the streets of the colonia where she lived. Elida showed me her community and, quite frankly, I couldn't believe I was in America. Since my election to the Senate, I have worked to improve living conditions and the quality of life for people such as Elida, helping to secure more than $615 million for the colonias of my State. In fact, my first amendment as a Senator authorized $50 million for a colonias clean-up project.
Despite third world living conditions, colonias, or underdeveloped subdivisions, have grown in population. Along the 1,248 mile stretch from Cameron County to El Paso County in Texas, there are more than 1,400 colonias that suffer from such conditions as open sewage, a lack of indoor plumbing, and poor housing construction.
The Colonias Gateway Initiative Act establishes annual competitive grants for nonprofit organizations which work to develop affordable housing, improve infrastructure, and foster economic opportunities. My bill would authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to award $16 million in the fiscal year 2004 and appoint a nine-member advisory board consisting of colonias residents and service providers to facilitate communication. This bill will bring quality-of-life improvements to those who need it most, providing
the most basic services like indoor plumbing. It will also provide funds to build affordable housing. This piece of legislation I introduce today will fulfill the most basic needs of these communities. As you can see, the Colonias Gateway Initiative Act will assist our neediest people, foster economic opportunity, and vastly improve the quality of life. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be placed in the Record.
Mr. President, I am pleased my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Tim Johnson, is joining me today in introducing this Missouri River Enhancement and Monitoring Act of 2003, and I thank him for his…
Mr. President, I am pleased my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Tim Johnson, is joining me today in introducing this Missouri River Enhancement and Monitoring Act of 2003, and I thank him for his efforts in working with me on this legislation. This bill will establish a program to conduct research on, and monitor the health of, the Missouri River to help recover threatened and endangered species, such as the pallid sturgeon and piping plover.
This bill will enable those who are active in the Missouri River Basin to collect and analyze baseline data, so that we can monitor changes in the health of the river and in species recovery in future years, as river operations change.
The program would also provide an analysis of the social and economic impacts along the river. And it would establish a stakeholder group to make recommendations on the recovery of the Missouri River ecosystem.
The bill establishes a cooperative working arrangement between State, regional, Federal, tribal entities that are active in the Missouri River Basin. I look forward to working with all of the stakeholders in the basin to implement this important legislation.
I am especially pleased that this legislation is supported by a broad range of stakeholders, including the North Dakota State Water Commission; the North Dakota Game and Fish Department; the Missouri River Natural Resources Committee; the Missouri River Basin Association; the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; American Rivers; and Environmental Defense.
I am confident this legislation will enjoy bipartisan support because of its significance in helping to monitor and restore the health of this historic river. Lewis and Clark traveled on this river. This river also contributes to $80 million in recreation, fishing, and tourism benefits in the basin. I look forward to participating in hearings on this bill and hope we will be able to pass it into law in the near future.
I ask unanimous consent that this bill be inserted in the Record.
Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining my colleague Senator Dodd in the introduction of the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Act. The SAFER Act establishes a new grant program…
Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining my colleague Senator Dodd in the introduction of the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Act. The SAFER Act establishes a new grant program that will provide direct funding to fire and rescue departments though the new Department of Homeland Security. This funding will help to cover some of the costs associated with hiring and training new firefighters.
Our Nation's fire departments must be able to hire the necessary personnel in order to meet the ever increasing demands on local first responders. Many Americans are not aware of the staffing shortages we may face in our fire and rescue departments. The role of firefighter in our communities is far greater than most realize. They are first to respond to hazardous materials calls, chemicals emergencies, biohazard incidents, and water rescues. These are dangers which our fire rescue personnel deal with on a daily basis.
The National Fire Protection Association, a nonprofit organization which develops and promotes scientifically based consensus codes and guidelines, issued minimum staffing standards of at least four firefighters per apparatus. Furthermore, local departments are expected to comply with Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, standards, which require a minimum of two qualified firefighters inside and two qualified firefighters outside of a structure fire or similar incident. Except in cases of a known need for rescue, a fire company with less than four personnel cannot enter that structure to fight a fire or respond to an incident until additional firefighters arrive on the scene, ready to go.
I am honored to be an original cosponsor of this important legislation. I encourage my colleagues to support this measure not only because of the firefighters role in our homeland security endeavors, but also in recognition of the critical day-to-day services they provide in our Nation's communities.
Bill Text
Latest available legislative text
[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 528 Introduced in Senate (IS)]
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 528
To reauthorize funding for maintenance of public roads used by school
buses serving certain Indian reservations.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
March 5, 2003
Mr. Bingaman (for himself and Mr. Bennett) introduced the following
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To reauthorize funding for maintenance of public roads used by school
buses serving certain Indian reservations.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Indian School Bus Route Safety
Reauthorization Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL CONTRACT AUTHORITY FOR STATES
WITH INDIAN RESERVATIONS.
(a) Availability to States.--Not later than October 1 of each
fiscal year, funds made available under subsection (e) for the fiscal
year shall be made available by the Secretary of Transportation, in
equal amounts, to each State that has within the boundaries of the
State all or part of an Indian reservation having a land area of
10,000,000 acres or more.
(b) Availability to Eligible Counties.--
(1) In general.--Each fiscal year, each county that is
located in a State to which funds are made available under
subsection (a), and that has in the county a public road
described in paragraph (2), shall be eligible to apply to the
State for all or a portion of the funds made available to the
State under this section to be used by the county to maintain
such public roads.
(2) Roads.--A public road referred to in paragraph (1) is a
public road that--
(A) is within, is adjacent to, or provides access
to an Indian reservation described in subsection (a);
(B) is used by a school bus to transport children
to or from a school or Headstart program carried out
under the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.); and
(C) is maintained by the county in which the public
road is located.
(3) Allocation among eligible counties.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph
(B), each State that receives funds under subsection
(a) shall provide directly to each county that applies
for funds the amount that the county requests in the
application.
(B) Allocation among eligible counties.--If the
total amount of funds applied for under this section by
eligible counties in a State exceeds the amount of
funds available to the State, the State shall equitably
allocate the funds among the eligible counties that
apply for funds.
(c) Supplementary Funding.--For each fiscal year, the Secretary of
Transportation shall ensure that funding made available under this
section supplements (and does not supplant)--
(1) any obligation of funds by the Bureau of Indian Affairs
for road maintenance programs on Indian reservations; and
(2) any funding provided by a State to a county for road
maintenance programs in the county.
(d) Use of Unallocated Funds.--Any portion of the funds made
available to a State under this section that is not made available to
counties within 1 year after the funds are made available to the State
shall be apportioned among the States in accordance with section 104(b)
of title 23, United States Code.
(e) Funding.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit
Account) to carry out this section--
(A) $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 and
2005;
(B) $4,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and
2007; and
(C) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and
2009.
(2) Contract authority.--Funds made available to carry out
this section shall be available for obligation in the same
manner as if the funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of
title 23, United States Code.
<all>