The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS” mentioning the Department of Interior was published in the Senate section on pages S8153-S8156 on July 25, 1997.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Faircloth, and
Mr. Nickles):
S. 1068. A bill to amend section 353 of the Public Health Service Act to exempt physician office laboratories from the clinical laboratories requirements of that section; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
THE CLINICAL LABORATORY IMPROVEMENT ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1997
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that is critically needed to reduce the regulatory burdens on our doctor's offices today.
In 1988, Congress passed the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act as a reaction to reports about laboratories that inaccurately analyzed PAP smears. CLIA 1988 was intended to address the quality of laboratory test performance. Unfortunately, the regulations enacted as a result of the CLIA 1988 legislation did not reflect the intent of the act. What in effect happened following the passage of CLIA 1988 was a series of regulations that substantially increased the amount of paperwork to be performed in physician offices and now ultimately increases the cost of health care to the patients. There has been little, if any, documentation that the CLIA 1988 reforms resulted in an improvement in patient care.
In fact, a Texas Medical Association study showed that the annual cost of the labor and administrative overhead added by CLIA averages
$4,435 per physician. This is in addition to the cost of registration, controls, proficiency testing, and inspection or accreditation. At a time when the entire health care industry is under pressure to control health care costs, the CLIA regulations not only subject physicians to increased administrative costs but also decrease the amount of time devoted to patient care.
One Texas physician describes his CLIA inspection as being left with a feeling that nothing of any real value was accomplished. Dr. McBrayer from the Texas Panhandle relates the inspection:
We were written up for such monumental things as the fact that I had not signed the procedure manual for one of our lab machines. Therefore, everything done on that machine, including the training, was out of compliance. The fact that the manufacturer's rep had come and trained the staff was to no avail. Everything was out of compliance because I didn't sign it. It didn't matter that they had learned how to use it. That was irrelevant.
The CLIA amendments I am introducing will reduce the burdens on physicians who perform laboratory tests in their offices and thereby free up resources and time to dedicate to patient care. In Texas alone, of the physicians who provided testing services in their offices prior to CLIA, 27 percent have closed their office labs, and another 31 percent have discounted some type of testing, as a direct result of the CLIA 1988 reforms. This has resulted in some areas of Texas experiencing physician shortages. Many physicians are concerned about the possible consequences to patients caused by the decreased access to testing or the delay in obtaining results. In the wake of the health care reform debate, it is important to promote quality-driven cost-
effective ways of delivery care.
Mr. President, the CLIA 1997 amendments will not jeopardize the quality of laboratory testing. This bill will exempt physician office lab tests from the CLIA 1988 restrictions that have caused many physicians to discontinue simple laboratory tests due to the excessive amounts of regulation involved in the performance of these tests. The CLIA 1997 amendments that I am introducing today in the Senate will have the narrow purpose of ensuring that essential laboratory testing performed by physicians remain a viable diagnostic option for physicians and their patients without the excessive rules and administratively complex requirements that currently exist, and, most importantly, eliminate the strain the CLIA 1988 legislation is placing on patients in rural areas who are losing access to necessary testing and care.
I hope that all my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation, which will reduce health care costs and improve the ability of patients to receive laboratory tests in a timely fashion while providing the much needed regulatory relief to physicians all over the country.
______
By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Warner):
S. 1069. A bill entitled the ``National Discovery Trails Act of 1997''; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
THE NATIONAL DISCOVERY TRAILS ACT OF 1997
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today for the purpose of introducing legislation that I think is most significant. This legislation will particularly appeal to those who are inclined to enjoy the outdoors because it will establish our Nation's first coast-to-
coast multiuse hiking trail. Take a moment and think about that. You will be able to hike from coast to coast on a hiking trail. That means off the highways, away from the roads, behind the freeways. A true outdoor experience.
Trails are one of America's most popular recreation resources. Millions of Americans hike, they ski, they jog, they bike, they ride horses, they drive snow machines and all-terrain vehicles, they observe nature, commute, and relax on trails throughout the country.
A variety of trails are provided nationwide, including urban bike paths, bridle paths, community greenways, historic trails, motorized trails, and long-distance hiking trails. This legislation will establish the American Discovery Trail, or ADT as it is commonly called. The ADT is a continuous coast-to-coast trail to link the Nation's principal north-south trails and east-west historic trails with shorter local and regional trails into a nationwide network.
Mr. President, by establishing a system of discovery trails, this new category will recognize that using and enjoying trails close to home is equally as important as traversing remote wilderness trails, of which we have many in my State of Alaska. Long-distance trails are used mostly by people living close to the trail and by weekenders. Backpacking excursions are normally a few days to a couple of weeks. As an example, of the estimated 4 million users of the Appalachian Trail, each year it is estimated that only about 100 to 150 walk the entire trail annually. This will be true of the American Discovery Trail as well, especially because of its proximity to urban locations throughout the country.
The ADT, the first of the discovery trails, will connect 6 of the national scenic trails, 10 of the national historic trails, 23 of the national recreation trails, and hundreds of other local and regional trails. Until now, the element that has been missing in order to create a national system of connected trails is that the existing trails, for the most part, are simply not connectable. With the ADT that will no longer be the case.
The ADT is about access. The trails will connect people to larger cities, small towns, urban areas and to mountains, forests, deserts and natural areas, incorporating regional, local, and national trails together.
What makes this so exciting is the way it has already brought people together. More than 100 organizations along the trail's 6,000 miles support the effort. Each State the trail passes through already has a volunteer coordination effort, and coordinators who lead an active ADT committee. A strong grassroots effort along with financial support from Backpacker magazine, Eco USA, The Coleman Companies and others, have helped make the ADT move from a dream to a reality.
Only one very more important step on the trail needs to be taken. Congress needs to authorize the trail as part of our national trail system. I invite my colleagues to join me in this effort.
The American Discovery Trail begins, or ends, when your two feet go into the Pacific at Point Reyes National Seashore, just north of San Francisco. Next are Berkeley and Sacramento before the climb to the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail in Lake Tahoe in the middle of the Sierra Nevada Mountains.
Nevada offers historic Virginia City, home of the Comstock Lode, the Pony Express National Historic Trail, Great Basin National Park with Lehman Caves and Wheeler Peak.
Utah provides national forests and parks along with spectacular red rock country, which leads into Colorado offering Colorado National Monument with its 20,445 acres of sandstone monoliths and canyons. Then there is the Grand Mesa over Scofield Pass and Crested Butte, in the heart of the ski country as you follow the Colorado and Continental Divide Trails into Evergreen. I wish I was there myself this afternoon.
At Denver, the ADT divides and becomes the northern and southern Midwest routes. The northern Midwest route winds through Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio; the southern Midwest route leaves Colorado and the Air Force Academy and follows the tracks and wagon wheel ruts of thousands of early pioneers through Kansas and Missouri as well as settlements and historic places in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky until the trail joins the northern route in Cincinnati.
West Virginia is next, then Maryland and the C&O Canal. This leads to Washington, DC, where the trail passes The Mall, the White House, the Capitol, and then heads on to Annapolis. Finally, in Delaware, the trail reaches the eastern terminus at Cape Henlopen State Park and the Atlantic Ocean.
Between the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean, one will experience the most spectacular scenery in the world, thousands of historic sites, lakes, rivers and streams of every size. The trail offers an opportunity to discovery America from small towns, to rural countryside, to large metropolitan areas.
When the President signs the legislation into law, a 10-year effort will have been achieved. The American Discovery Trail will become a reality. The more people who use it, the better.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1069
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``National Discovery Trails Act of 1997''.
SEC. 2. NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM ACT AMENDMENTS.
Section 3(a) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1242(a)) is amended by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
``(5) National discovery trails, established as provided in section 5, which will be extended, continuous, interstate trails so located as to provide for outstanding outdoor recreation and travel and to connect representative examples of America's trails and communities. National discovery trails should provide for the conservation and enjoyment of significant natural, cultural, and historic resources associated with each trail and should be so located as to represent metropolitan, urban, rural, and back country regions of the Nation.''. Any such trail may be designated on federal lands and, with the consent of the owner thereof, on any non federal lands: Provided, that such consent may be revoked at any time. The Congress does not intend for the establishment of a National Discovery Trail to lead to the creation of protective perimeters or buffer zones adjacent to a National Discovery Trail. The fact that there may be activities or uses on lands adjacent to the trail that would not be permitted on the trail shall not preclude such activities or uses on such lands adjacent to the trail to the extent consistent with other applicable law.
(2) Feasibility Requirements; Cooperative Management Requirement.--Section 5 of such Act (16 U.S.C. 1244) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g)(1) For purposes of subsection (b), a trail shall not be considered feasible and desirable for designation as a national discovery trail unless it meets all of the following criteria:
``(A) the trail must link one or more areas within the boundaries of a metropolitan area (as those boundaries are determined under section 134(c) of title 23, United States Code). It should also join with other trails, connecting the National Trails System to significant recreation and resources areas.
``(B) The trail must be supported by a competent trailwide nonprofit organization. Each trail should have extensive local and trailwide support by the public, by user groups, and by affected State and local governments.
``(C) The trail must be extended and pass through more than one State. At a minimum, it should be a continuous, walkable route not including any non-federal property for which the owner had not provided consent for inclusion and use.
``(2) The appropriate Secretary for each national discovery trail shall administer the trail in cooperation with a competent trailwide nonprofit organization.''.
(b) Designation of the American Discovery Trail as a National Discovery Trail.--Section 5(a) of such Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(a)) is amended--
(1) by re-designating the paragraph relating to the California National Historic Trail as paragraph (18);
(2) by re-designating the paragraph relating to the Pony Express National Historic Trail as paragraph (19); and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(20) The American Discovery Trail, a trail of approximately 6,000 miles extending from Cape Henlopen State Park in Delaware to Point Reyes National Seashore in California, extending westward through Delaware, Maryland, the District of Columbia, West Virginia, Ohio, and Kentucky, where near Cincinnati it splits into two routes. The Northern Midwest route traverses Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, and Colorado, and the Southern Midwest route traverses Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, and Colorado. After the two routes rejoin in Denver, Colorado, the route continues through Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and California. The trail is generally described in Volume 2 of the National Park Service feasibility study dated June 1995 which shall be on file and available for public inspection in the office of the Director of the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, the District of Columbia. The American Discovery Trail shall be administered by the Secretary of the Interior in cooperation with a competent trailwide nonprofit organization and other affected land managing agencies. No lands or interests outside the exterior boundaries of federally administered areas may be acquired by the Federal Government solely for the American Discovery Trail. This trail is specifically exempted from the provisions of sections 7(e), 7(f), and 7(g).''.
(c) Comprensive National Discovery Trail Plan.--Section 5 of such Act (16 U.S.C. 1244) is further amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(h) Within three complete fiscal years after the date of enactment of any law designating a national discovery trail, the administering Federal agency shall, in cooperation with a competent trailwide nonprofit organization, submit a comprehensive plan for the protection, management, development, and use of the federal portions of the trail, and provide technical assistance to states and local units of government and private landowners, as requested, for non-federal portions of the trail, to the Committee on Resources of the United States House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the United States Senate. The Secretary shall ensure that the comprehensive plan for the entire trail does not conflict with any existing agency direction and that the nonprofit organization consults with affected land managing agencies, the Governors of the affected States, county and local political jurisdictions, and local organizations maintaining components of the trail. Mandatory components of the comprehensive plan include--
``(1) specific objectives and practices to be observed in the administration and management of the trail, including the identification of all significant natural, historical, and cultural resources to be preserved, model agreements necessary for joint trail administration among and between interested parties, and an identified carrying capacity of the trail and a plan for its implementation;
``(2) general and site-specific development plans including anticipated costs; and
``(3) the process to be followed by the nonprofit organization, in cooperation with the appropriate Secretary, to implement the trail marking authorities in section 7(c) conforming to approved trail logo or emblem requirements.''. Nothing in this Act may be construed to impose or permit the imposition of any landowner on the use of any non federal lands without the consent of the owner thereof, which consent may be revoked at any time. Neither the designation of a National Discovery Trail nor any plan relating thereto shall affect or be considered in the granting or denial of a right of way or any conditions relating thereto.
SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
The National Trails System Act is amended--
(1) in section 2(b) (16 U.S.C. 1241(b)), by striking
``scenic and historic'' and inserting ``scenic, historic, and discovery'';
(2) in the section heading to section 5 (16 U.S.C. 1244), by striking ``AND NATIONAL HISTORIC'' and inserting ``, NATIONAL HISTORIC, AND NATIONAL DISCOVERY'';
(3) in section 5(a) (16 U.S.C. 1244(a)), in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``and national historic'' and inserting ``, national historic, and national discovery''; and
(B) by striking ``and National Historic'' and inserting ``, National Historic, and National Discovery'';
(4) in section 5(b) (16 U.S.C. 1244(b)), in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``or national historic'' and inserting ``, national historic, or national discovery'';
(5) in section 5(b)(3) (16 U.S.C. 1244(b)(3)), by striking
``or national historic'' and inserting ``, national historic, or national discovery'';
(6) in section 7(a)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1246(a)(2)), by striking
``and national historic'' and inserting ``, national historic, and national discovery'';
(7) in section 7(b) (16 U.S.C. 1246(b)), by striking ``or national historic'' each place such term appears and inserting ``, national historic, or national discovery'';
(8) in section 7(c) (16 U.S.C. 1246(c))--
(A) by striking ``scenic or national historic'' each place it appears and inserting ``scenic, national historic, or national discovery'';
(B) in the second proviso, by striking ``scenic, or national historic'' and inserting ``scenic, national historic, or national discovery''; and
(C) by striking ``, and national historic'' and inserting
``, national historic, and national discovery'';
(9) in section 7(d) (16 U.S.C. 1246(d)), by striking ``or national historic'' and inserting ``national historic, or national discovery'';
(10) in section 7(e) (16 U.S.C. 1246(e)), by striking ``or national historic'' each place such term appears and inserting ``, national historic, or national discovery'';
(11) in section 7(f)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1246(f)(2)), by striking
``National Scenic or Historic'' and inserting ``national scenic, historic, or discovery trail'';
(12) in section 7(h)(1) (16 U.S.C. 1246(h)(1)), by striking
``or national historic'' and inserting ``national historic, or national discovery''; and
(13) in section 7(i) (16 U.S.C. 1246(i)), by striking ``or national historic'' and inserting ``national historic, or national discovery''.
______
By Mr. JEFFORDS:
S. 1070. A bill to provide for a regional education and workforce training system in the metropolitan Washington area, to improve the school facilities of the District of Columbia, and to fund such activities in part by an income tax on nonresident workers in the District of Columbia; to the Committee on Finance.
The Metropolitan Washington Education and Workforce Training Act of
1997
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today, pursuant to many recent discussions about the rescue plan for the District of Columbia, that reaffirms my strong belief that education must be the keystone of that plan and that fair and ready funding is available with no cost to the Federal Government.
Every Washington area citizen should keep a careful watch on what Congress is doing to rescue the Capital from its present plight. The chorus resounds, ``we must get people to move back into the Capital! Its future depends on it!'' But if we examine the present congressional and administration plans and overlay them onto the root causes for the plight, serious questions arise as to their effectiveness.
Studies indicate that the two leading causes, by far, that cause people to leave the District and keep them from living in the city are poor schools and high incidents of crime. Let's examine the plans that Congress has before it.
Only the Senate plan as currently outlined even mentions education and that is basically a symbolic gesture to help repair the crumbling school infrastructure. The administration does consider the crime problem, but only at the end game of taking over the prison system. The administration's plan has no mention of repairing the failing D.C. educational system; a system which is among the worst in the Nation.
The central administrative problem of the District's school system is not money, it is management chaos. But money is a serious concern in the area of school infrastructure, and D.C. has one of the worst school infrastructures in the Nation. In fairness to General Becton, the new chief executive officer for the schools, he is trying valiantly to upgrade overall standards but too much of his time is spent dealing with emergency school infrastructure repairs. Again this September, 43 schools will be threatened with closure at the outset of the academic year. Over $2 billion are needed just to fix building code violations.
Crime in the District is directly related to the public school system. Some 40 percent of D.C. children drop out of school between grades 7 and 12. National studies show that about 80 percent of prison inmates are school drop-outs. A plan to help D.C. must have a strong component to improve education. As will be shown below, this need not carry a significant dollar cost to the Federal Treasury. In fact it will save millions.
The President wants to be known as the Education President. Congress wants to be known as the Education Congress. Wouldn't the best demonstration of that intent be to start by improving the education system of the Nation's Capital?
The present plans for enhancing a middle-class tax base in the District are based on business tax incentives. But if you are a middle-
class taxpayer with school-age children you currently have to factor in approximately $10,000 a year in private education fees to feel comfortable with the level of education and safety you are providing to your family--$10,000 a year, per child, is a huge barrier for most middle-class families.
The plans currently being considered in Congress that exclude discussion of schools may well create jobs. But jobs for whom? Even the promoters of those plans recognize that those jobs would primarily go to non-residents of the District. Projections show that two out of three jobs will go to non-residents. This will leave the District with more infrastructure demands and less money to deal with them--the exact status of the problems at present.
As stated in the recent Brookings Institution study on D.C. entitled
``The Orphan Capital'' taxing metropolitan area residents where they live instead of where they work creates a revenue boon for Maryland and Virginia and a revenue disaster for the District. D.C. is the only city in a multi-State configuration in the country that has an income tax but is not able to tax its non-resident workers. This situation has also led D.C. to have the highest income tax rate on its residents in the area. That income tax rate is another barrier to the middle-class return to the city.
The result is that $20 billion in wages leaves the District each year without being taxed, resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars flowing each year to the treasuries of Maryland and Virginia. Only 1 percent of this amount goes in the other direction--from D.C. residents working in the suburbs back in to D.C. This is a huge inequity that no other major city suffers.
The history of the tax inequity began in 1973 when D.C. was given home rule. An astute Virginia representative convinced Congress to prohibit the non-resident tax from being enacted. A brilliant move, perhaps justified at the time, but it is unjust now, particularly to the children of D.C. It is not unexpected that the Maryland and Virginia Senators object violently when changing this situation is suggested.
However, a win-win proposal for all D.C. metropolitan residents is possible. It will create high-paying job opportunities for high-school graduates through improved skill training. It will provide the needed repairs to the D.C. school infrastructure. It will provide funds to improve schools and other area training institutions.
A recent report issued by the Greater Washington Board of Trade indicates that there are approximately 50,000 high-paying jobs requiring information technology skills in the Washington metropolitan area. These jobs pay on average $40,000 a year. By filling these jobs the Board of Trade estimates an additional $3.5 billion annually would be injected into the economy of what we call `the golden crescent'--the Washington metropolitan region that stretches from Annapolis, Maryland to Winchester, Virginia.
But actually, this labor market shortage is a national problem. There are an estimated 190,000 information technology jobs going begging in the Nation for lack of skilled workers. Congress is presently trying to pass legislation to revamp our workforce training laws. We have at this time a prime opportunity to solve the D.C. metropolitan problem and provide a national model to help correct the serious national skill training deficiencies. I am introducing legislation today to accomplish this ``win-win'' structure.
If the Washington metropolitan area were to become a model for the rest of the country we could jump start the rest of the country in solving this serious national problem. And this could be done with no additional Federal cost. But, of course, there is a hitch.
My plan would require a 3-percent non-resident income tax on D.C. commuter wages. But remember, it would cost the commuters nothing because of laws requiring mutual offsetting tax credits. There would be an offset against the State income taxes of Maryland and Virginia. This would allow the commuter dollars to stay within the metropolitan region instead of going to Richmond and Annapolis with the hope of it coming back.
One percent of this new revenue would be used to repair the D.C. school infrastructure. Bonds could then be amortized for the $2 billion needed. The other two percent would fund a trust overseen by metro-area school and business leaders to provide funding for regional skill training.
Benefits to the regional economy should more than offset any losses to the States. It is hard to argue against growing the local Maryland and Virginia metro-area economies by $3.5 billion a year. This and future gains would more than offset the 1 percent going solely to D.C.
And finally, this bill results in hundreds of millions of dollars in savings to the Federal Government; hundreds of millions of dollars of help to the suburbs surrounding the capital; the repair of the D.C. school system and the overall improvement of the regional school system; and potential revenue gains to Maryland and Virginia. Most importantly, it would make the congressional and administration plans sensible instead of senseless. We must not miss this opportunity.
______
By Mr. D'AMATO (by request):
S. 1071. A bill to facilitate the effective and efficient management of the homeless assistance programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, including the merger of such programs into one performance fund, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
the homelessness assistance and management reform act of 1997
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, I introduce the Homelessness Assistance and Management Reform Act of 1997 at the request of the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo.
____________________
