[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 30 (Wednesday, March 10, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2548-S2561]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. GRAHAM of Florida:
  S. 2187. A bill to amend the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act 
of 1998; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, seven years ago, I introduced 
the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1998 (HRIFA). I 
introduced HRIFA after Congress enacted the Nicaraguan Adjustment and 
Central American Relief Act (NACARA). NACARA enabled Nicaraguans and 
Cubans to become permanent residents and permitted many unsuccessful 
Central American and Eastern European asylum applicants to seek another 
form of immigration relief. At the time, Haitians were suffering brutal 
and widespread political persecution by a ruthless dictatorship. Yet 
lawmakers opted to exclude Haitian asylum seekers from the NACARA 
legislation.
  HRIFA became law with bipartisan support and reversed this grave 
inequity in U.S. immigration law. It allowed Haitians who had fled 
political turmoil in their country an opportunity to adjust their 
status like the opportunity we granted to refuges from other countries. 
The legislation has been beneficial and nearly 11,000 Haitians have 
adjusted their status and become legal permanent residents of the 
United States. However HRIFA contained several flaws that undermine the 
original intent of the legislation. That is why today I am introducing 
the HRIFA Improvement Act of 2004. I would like to thank my friend 
Senator

[[Page S2549]]

Mike DeWine for taking the lead in co-sponsoring this bill and for his 
continued support and commitment to fairness in our immigration policy.
  First, this legislation corrects an oversight that disqualified 
Haitian refugees who entered the country with falsified papers. Some 
Haitian refugees, like many who have fled repressive governments, used 
falsified documents to flee their country when it was impossible for 
them to get travel documents from their dictatorial government.
  If you look at other immigration legislation, it is clear that the 
exclusion of Haitian refugees who came here with falsified documents is 
an oversight. NACARA allowed refugees from a long list of countries, 
including Guatemala, El Salvador, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, and a 
number of others, to adjust their status to legal permanent residence, 
even if they entered the country with fraudulent documents.
  As result of this oversight, many families and up to 5,000 American 
children face the possible deportation of a spouse, father or mother 
who has worked for a decade or more to build a life and a family in the 
United States. There have been media reports, heart-rending stories, of 
parents facing the choice between forever leaving their American-born 
children in their safe communities and schools in the United States or 
taking them back to a strife-torn Haiti where their parents risk 
political violence and persecution.
  I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an Associated Press 
story from December 29, 2003, called ``Flaw in Law threatens 
Deportation for Haitian Refugees.'' The piece tells the story of Rigaud 
Rene, a Haitian political activist now living in Miami. Mr. Rene faces 
deportation because he fled Haiti in 1994 using doctored documents and 
is therefore not covered by HRIFA. Since coming here, Mr. Rene has 
learned English, held down a job and earned his GED degree. He also 
married and has a one and a half year old American-born son.
  If Mr. Rene is deported, he will be forced to take his U.S. citizen 
son with him or leave him here without any means of support. It is a 
solomonic choice that Mr. Rene should not have to make, especially 
because his dilemma is the result of a simple oversight in the law.
  The difference between the way we treat Haitians and the way we treat 
refugees from other nations is inconsistent and unfair. The elimination 
of this kind of inconsistency and unfairness was the primary motivation 
for the passage of HRIFA in 1998. Clearly, the exclusion of Haitians 
who entered with falsified documents was an oversight that must now be 
corrected.
  The second purpose of the Improvement Act is to respond to another 
legislative oversight that left Haitian children and dependents 
unprotected from ``aging out'' of HRIFA eligibility. HRIFA allows 
children and unmarried dependents of approved applicants to adjust to 
legal permanent residency. However, the Bureau of Citizenship and 
Immigration Services has taken much longer than was expected to approve 
the many applicants who had eligible children and dependents when they 
applied. As a result, many of those who would have been eligible had 
their parents or guardians been approved earlier have now ``aged out'' 
of eligibility or gotten married.
  Currently, these ``aged out'' individuals face the immediate risk of 
deportation. Their ineligibility is a result solely of administrative 
delays and is neither their fault nor the intent of HRIFA. The 
Improvement Act addresses this unforeseen injustice by permitting these 
individuals to apply for adjustment of status or move to have their 
cause reopened.
  Finally, the HRIFA Improvement Act of 2004 also ensures fairness by 
extending the protection from deportation to applicants under this Act. 
This is consistent with the protection extended to applicants under the 
1998 HRIFA legislation.
  All those who come to the United States fleeing political persecution 
and violence deserve to be treated fairly and equally. This country is 
built on this principle of justice and we should give everyone, 
regardless of his or her national origin, an equal opportunity. That is 
what this legislation intends to do.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Associated Press, Dec. 29, 2003]

         Flaw in Law Threatens Deportation for Haitian Refugees

                            (By Ken Thomas)

       Nearly a decade after leaving Haiti, Regaud Rene ends each 
     day with a prayer. He gives thanks for his wife and young son 
     and their life in America--and prays that their time together 
     will endure.
       Rene, a former political activist on the island, faces 
     deportation following a lengthy legal battle with immigration 
     authorities.
       He says deportation would devastate his family, forcing him 
     to take his 1\1/2\-year-old American-born son to Haiti and 
     leave behind his wife. He also will lose a job that helps him 
     send about $300 a month to support family members in Haiti.
       ``Some people pray to Jesus for miracles,'' Rene said 
     during a recent interview. ``They are not more special than 
     me. So I hope that God can help me, too.''
       Rene, 41, is one of about 3,000 Haitian migrants ensnarled 
     in what activists call a flaw in a 1998 law to help provide 
     permanent residency--called green cards--to illegal aliens 
     from Haiti who lived in the United States before 1996.
       The bill didn't include waivers for Haitian migrants known 
     as ``airplane refugees'' who used forged documents to flee 
     revengeful abuses and killings in the impoverished island 
     after President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the country's first 
     freely elected leader, was deposed in a 1991 coup by Gen. 
     Raul Cedras.
       In Rene's case, immigration officials have maintained that 
     the altered documents make him ineligible to live here 
     legally because he committed fraud to enter the country.
       But local activists contend that pro-Aristide Haitians 
     arriving by air had to use altered documents to escape 
     possible harm in Haiti because the U.S. Coast Guard was 
     interdicting refugees who came by sea and returning them.
       ``All these people knew they were being looked for,'' said 
     Steven Forester, a senior policy advocate for the Haitian 
     Women of Miami, a nonprofit organization. ``If you're being 
     looked for by a regime that's chopping people's faces off, 
     you don't get into a boat.''
       Those who worked on the 1998 Haitian bill said the 
     ``airplane refugees'' were not supposed to be left out. Paul 
     Virtue, who served as general counsel at the former INS in 
     1998-99, said he thought ``it was an oversight that they 
     were excluded.''
       ``I don't think anyone really thought about the problem 
     that people would face who came by aircraft,'' Virtue said.
       The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees 
     immigration, declined comment on Rene's case. But Dan Kane, a 
     department spokesman, stressed that every case is judged on 
     the individual merits of an applicant's arguments.
       Rene initially sought asylum when he first entered the 
     United States in 1994 but was ordered deported by an 
     immigration judge for using a forged passport. His appeal was 
     pending when Congress passed the 1998 law to help Haitians. 
     Rene sought a green card under the new law but his claim was 
     rejected in July 2001.
       He appealed the decision and Tuesday his case was sent back 
     to be reheard by an immigration judge. But Aristide's return 
     to power has weakened his argument in the past and his lawyer 
     cautions that Rene could be deported at any moment.
       ``It's very desperate. They could pick him up today,'' said 
     Clarel Cyriaque, a Miami lawyer handling Rene's case.
       Rene tried to get a green card through his wife, Sonie 
     Octalus, who came here in 1996 and is a legal permanent 
     resident, but the family failed to demonstrate deporting him 
     would result in an ``extreme hardship.''
       U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek, a Miami Democrat, introduced 
     legislation in October to expand the Haitian law to include 
     those who arrived by air and to prevent the government from 
     deporting anyone with a pending application. But Meek said it 
     faces an uncertain future.
       Meek said ``the only real flicker of light'' would come if 
     the Bush administration embraces Homeland Security Secretary 
     Tom Ridge's recent suggestion of support for an amnesty for 
     illegal immigrants.
       Thousands of Haitians have applied for green cards under 
     the 1998 Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act. But the 
     majority of the cases have yet to be adjudicated. A U.S. 
     General Accounting Office report in October found that more 
     than 11,000 of the 37,851 applications have been approved.
       Rene was an active Aristide supporter when the Haitian 
     priest ran for president in 1990. He led 300 Aristide 
     supporters in his hometown of Le Borgne and joined the pro-
     Aristide National Front for Change in Democracy. He passed 
     out leaflets and photos supporting Aristide.
       A month after the coup, Rene said he was visited at his 
     home by five members of the military. The men, who were 
     carrying revolvers, threatened him and pushed him around, 
     according to court documents. Rene then went into hiding for 
     two years, staying with a friend in the northern city of Cap-
     Haitien.
       ``I was scared to go back to Le Borgne. If I go back to Le 
     Borgne, anything could happen,'' he recalled.
       He fled Haiti for the Bahamas by boat in early 1994 and 
     then used forged documents to fly to Miami International 
     Airport in May 1994, months before Aristide was returned to 
     power.

[[Page S2550]]

       Rene has built a new life in America, learning English at a 
     local Catholic church, working as a deli clerk at a Miami 
     Beach grocery store and taking night classes to earn a GED 
     degree.
       Rene married Octalus in February 2001. Their son, Rikinson, 
     was born the following year. The family lives in a small one-
     bedroom apartment, where a small bed sits in a cramped 
     living room cooled by a white box fan.
       If Rene is deported, the couple will send Rikinson with him 
     because Octalus doesn't drive, has no other relatives in the 
     area and speaks limited English. But the decision has been 
     wrenching.
       ``If they send him to Haiti, it's like telling me I might 
     as well go to Haiti, too,'' Octalus said, through a 
     translator in her native Creole.
       The couple also wonders how they'll support their families 
     in Haiti if Rene is deported. Rene sends about $300 a month 
     to support two other children, two sisters and his mother. 
     His wife sends $500 a month to six sisters on the island, 
     paying their rent, school tuition and clothing.
       The U.S. Agency for International Development estimates 
     Haitians living in the U.S. send between $700 million to $800 
     million to Haiti every year. Forester, of Haitian Women of 
     Miami, worries about the impact on families in Haiti who lose 
     financial support when relatives are deported.
       ``If they really want to send a message not to flee, what 
     they're doing by deporting these people is causing the very 
     migration outflow that they say they're trying to prevent,'' 
     Forester said.
       A man of faith, Rene says his hopes have been reduced to 
     prayer. Prayer, he quips, is another part of the American 
     experience.
       ``In God We Trust,'' Rene said with a smile. ``That's what 
     the Americans say.''
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Daschle):
  S. 2188. A bill to provide for reform of the Corps of Engineers, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Corps of 
Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act of 2004. I am pleased to be 
joined by the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, who worked with 
me in the 107th Congress to reform the Corps. I also thank the senior 
Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Daschle, who, as the Democratic Leader, 
has long supported Corps reform, for cosponsoring this legislation 
today.
  As we debate the budget resolution this week, we cannot ignore the 
record-breaking deficits that the Nation faces. Fiscal responsibility 
has never been so important. This legislation provides Congress with a 
unique opportunity to underscore our commitment to that goal. Time and 
time again we have heard that fiscal responsibility and environmental 
protection are mutually exclusive. Through this legislation, however, 
we can save taxpayers billions of dollars and protect the environment. 
As evidence of this unique opportunity, this bill is supported by 
Taxpayers for Common$ense, the National Taxpayers Union, the National 
Wildlife Federation, American Rivers, the Corps Reform Network, and 
Earthjustice.
  Reforming the Army Corps of Engineers will be a difficult task for 
Congress. It involves restoring credibility and accountability to a 
Federal agency rocked by scandals and constrained by endlessly growing 
authorizations and a gloomy federal fiscal picture, and yet an agency 
that Wisconsin, and many other states across the country, have come to 
rely upon. From the Great Lakes to the mighty Mississippi, the Corps is 
involved in providing aid to navigation, environmental remediation, 
water control and a variety of other services in my state alone.
  My office has strong working relationships with the Detroit, Rock 
Island, and St. Paul District Offices that service Wisconsin, and I 
want the fiscal and management cloud over the Corps to dissipate so 
that the Corps can continue to contribute to our environment and our 
economy.
  This legislation evolved from my experience in seeking to offer an 
amendment to the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to create 
independent review of Army Corps of Engineers' projects. In response to 
my initiative, the bill's managers, which included the former Senator 
from New Hampshire, Senator Bob Smith, and the senior Senator from 
Montana, Mr. Baucus, adopted an amendment as part of their managers' 
package to require a National Academy of Sciences study on the issue of 
peer review of Corps projects.
  The bill I introduce today includes many provisions that were 
included in two bills, one of which I authored and the other I 
cosponsored, in the 107th Congress. It codifies the idea of independent 
review of the Corps, which was investigated through the 2000 Water 
Resources bill. It also provides a mechanism to speed up completion of 
construction for good Corps projects with large public benefits by 
deauthorizing low priority and economically wasteful projects.
  I will note, however, that this is not the first time that the 
Congress has realized that the Corps needs to be reformed because of 
its association with pork projects. In 1836, a House Ways and Means 
Committee report discovered that at least 25 Corps projects were over 
budget. In its report, the Committee noted that Congress must ensure 
that the Corps institutes ``actual reform, in the further prosecution 
of public works.'' In 1902, Congress created a review board to 
determine whether Corps projects were justified. The review board was 
dismantled just over a decade ago, and the Corps is still linked with 
wasteful spending. Here we are, more than 100 years later, talking 
about the same issue.
  The reality is that the underlying problem is not with the Corps, the 
problem is with Congress. All too often Members of Congress have seen 
Corps projects as a way to bring home the bacon, rather than ensuring 
that taxpayers get the most bang for their federal buck.
  This bill puts forth bold, comprehensive reform measures. It 
modernizes the Corps project planning guidelines, which have not been 
updated since 1983. It requires the Corps to use sound science in 
estimating the costs and evaluating the needs for water resources 
projects. The bill clarifies that the national economic development and 
environmental protection are co-equal goals of the Corps. Furthermore, 
the Corps must use current discount rates when determining the costs 
and benefits of projects. Several Corps projects are justified using a 
discount rate formula established in 1974, not the current government-
wide discount rate promulgated by the Office of Management and Budget. 
By using this outdated discount rate formula, the Corps often 
overestimates project benefits and underestimates project costs.
  This legislation also requires that a water resource project's 
benefits must be 1.5 times greater than the costs to the taxpayer. 
According to a 2002 study of the Corps backlog of projects, at least 60 
Corps projects, whose combined costs total $4.6 billion, do not meet 
this 1.5 to 1 benefit-cost ratio. Thus, this benefit-cost ratio will 
save the taxpayer billions of dollars. The bill also mandates Federal-
local cost sharing of inland waterways, flood control, and future beach 
renourishment projects, and reduces the Federal cost burden of these 
projects.
  While the bill assumes a flat 50 percent cost-share for flood control 
projects, my home state of Wisconsin has been on the forefront of 
responsible flood plain management and also happens to be home to the 
Association of State Flood Plain Managers. As Congress considers the 
issue of Corps reform and the Water Resources Development Act, I hope 
my colleagues will take a closer look at the issue of a sliding cost 
scale. We should explore the possibility of creating incentives for 
communities with cutting-edge flood plain management practices to 
reduce their local share for projects.
  The bill requires independent review of Corps projects. The National 
Academy of Sciences, the General Accounting Office, and even the 
Inspector General of the Army agree that independent review is an 
essential step to assuring that each Corps project is economically 
justified. Independent review will apply to projects in the following 
circumstances: 1. the project has costs greater than $25 million, 
including mitigation costs; 2. the Governor of a state that is affected 
by the project requests a panel; 3. the head of a Federal agency 
charged with reviewing the project determines that the project is 
likely to have a significant adverse environmental or cultural impact; 
or 4. the Secretary of the Army determines that the project is 
controversial. Any party can request that the Secretary make a 
determination of whether the project is controversial.
  This bill also creates a Director of Independent Review within the 
Office

[[Page S2551]]

of the Inspector General of the Department of the Army. The Director is 
responsible for empaneling experts to review projects. The Secretary is 
required to respond to the panel's report and explain the extent to 
which a final report addresses the panel's concerns. The panel report 
and the underlying data that the Corps uses to justify the project will 
be made available to the public.
  The bill also requires strong environmental protection measures. The 
Corps is required to mitigate the environmental impacts of its projects 
in a variety of ways, including by avoiding damaging wetlands in the 
first place and either holding other lands or constructing wetlands 
elsewhere when it cannot avoid destroying them. The Corps requires 
private developers to meet this standard when they construct projects 
as a condition of receiving a federal permit, and I think the Federal 
Government should live up to the same standards. Too often, the Corps 
does not complete required mitigation and enhances environmental risks.
  I feel very strongly that mitigation must be completed, that the true 
costs of mitigation should be accounted for in Corps projects, and that 
the public should be able to track the progress of mitigation projects. 
The bill requires the Corps to develop a detailed mitigation plan for 
each water resources project, and conduct monitoring to demonstrate 
that the mitigation is working. In addition, the concurrent mitigation 
requirements of this bill would actually reduce the total mitigation 
costs by ensuring the purchase of mitigation lands as soon as possible.

  This bill streamlines the existing automatic deauthorization process. 
Estimates of the project backlog runs from $58 billion to $41 billion. 
Under the bill a project authorized for construction but never started 
is deauthorized if it is denied appropriations funds towards completion 
of construction for five straight years. In addition, a project that 
has begun construction but been denied appropriations funds towards 
completion for three straight years is deauthorized. The bill also 
preserves congressional prerogatives over setting the Corps' 
construction priorities by allowing Congress a chance to reauthorize 
any of these projects before they are automatically deauthorized. This 
process will be transparent to all interests, because the bill requires 
the Corps to make a list of projects in the construction backlog 
available to Congress and the public at large.
  In the past decade, the Corps has routinely strayed from its mission 
of flood control, navigation, and environmental protection. This 
legislation also requires that the Corps stick with its primary 
missions and that any water project that does not have the Corps' 
primary mission of flood control, navigation, or environmental 
protection as its main objective will be deauthorized.
  This legislation will bring out comprehensive revision of the project 
review and authorization procedures at the Army Corps of Engineers. My 
goals for the Corps are to increase transparency and accountability, to 
ensure fiscal responsibility, and to allow greater stakeholder 
involvement in their projects. I remain committed to these goals, and 
to seeing Corps Reform enacted as part of this Congress's Water 
Resources bill.
  I feel that this bill is an important step down the road to a 
reformed Corps of Engineers. This bill establishes a framework to catch 
mistakes by Corps planners, deter any potential bad behavior by Corps 
officials to justify questionable projects, end old unjustified 
projects, and provide planners desperately needed support against the 
never ending pressure of project boosters. Those boosters, include 
congressional interests, which is why I believe that this body needs to 
champion reform--to end the perception that Corps projects are all pork 
and no substance.
  I wish it were the case that the changes we are proposing today were 
not needed, but unfortunately, I see that there is need for this bill. 
I want to make sure that future Corps projects no longer fail to 
produce predicted benefits, stop costing the taxpayers more than the 
Corps estimated, do not have unanticipated environmental impacts, and 
are built in an environmentally compatible way. This bill will help the 
Corps do a better job, which is what the taxpayers and the environment 
deserve.
  I ask unanimous consent that the 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. 2188

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Corps of 
     Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act of 2004''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

                 TITLE I--MODERNIZING PROJECT PLANNING

Sec. 101. Modern planning principles.
Sec. 102. Independent review.
Sec. 103. Benefit-cost analysis.
Sec. 104. Benefit-cost ratio.
Sec. 105. Cost sharing.

                          TITLE II--MITIGATION

Sec. 201. Full mitigation.
Sec. 202. Concurrent mitigation.
Sec. 203. Mitigation tracking system.

               TITLE III--ADDRESSING THE PROJECT BACKLOG

Sec. 301. Project backlog.
Sec. 302. Primary mission focus.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Corps of Engineers is the primary Federal agency 
     responsible for developing and managing the harbors, 
     waterways, shorelines, and water resources of the United 
     States;
       (2) the scarcity of Federal resources requires more 
     efficient use of Corps resources and funding, and greater 
     oversight of Corps analyses;
       (3) appropriate cost sharing ensures efficient measures of 
     project demands and enables the Corps to meet more national 
     project needs;
       (4) the significant demand for recreation, clean water, and 
     healthy wildlife habitat must be fully reflected in the 
     project planning and construction process of the Corps;
       (5) the human health, environmental, and social impacts of 
     dams, levees, shoreline stabilization structures, river 
     training structures, river dredging, and other Corps projects 
     and activities must be adequately considered and, in any case 
     in which adverse impacts cannot be avoided, fully mitigated;
       (6) the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that the 
     Principles and Guidelines for water resources projects need 
     to be modernized and updated to reflect current economic 
     practices and environmental laws and planning guidelines; and
       (7) affected interests must have access to information that 
     will allow those interests to play a larger and more 
     effective role in the oversight of Corps project development 
     and mitigation.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to ensure that the water resources investments of the 
     United States are economically justified and enhance the 
     environment;
       (2) to provide independent review of feasibility studies, 
     general reevaluation studies, and environmental impact 
     statements of the Corps;
       (3) to ensure timely, ecologically successful, and cost-
     effective mitigation for Corps projects;
       (4) to ensure appropriate local cost sharing to assist in 
     efficient project planning focused on national needs;
       (5) to enhance the involvement of affected interests in 
     feasibility studies, general reevaluation studies, and 
     environmental impact statements of the Corps;
       (6) to modernize planning principles of the Corps to meet 
     the economic and environmental needs of riverside and coastal 
     communities and the nation;
       (7) to ensure that environmental protection and 
     restoration, and national economic development, are co-equal 
     goals, and given co-equal emphasis, during the evaluation, 
     planning, and construction of Corps projects;
       (8) to ensure that project planning, project evaluations, 
     and project recommendations of the Corps are based on sound 
     science and economics and on a full evaluation of the impacts 
     to the health of aquatic ecosystems; and
       (9) to ensure that the determination of benefits and costs 
     of Corps projects properly reflects current law and Federal 
     policies designed to protect human health and the 
     environment.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Academy.--The term ``Academy'' means the National 
     Academy of Sciences.
       (2) Corps.--The term ``Corps'' means the Corps of 
     Engineers.
       (3) Principles and guidelines.--The term ``Principles and 
     Guidelines'' means the principles and guidelines of the Corps 
     for water resources projects (consisting of Engineer 
     Regulation 1105-2-100 and Engineer Pamphlet 1165-2-1).
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Army.

[[Page S2552]]

                 TITLE I--MODERNIZING PROJECT PLANNING

     SEC. 101. MODERN PLANNING PRINCIPLES.

       (a) Planning Principles.--Section 209 of the Flood Control 
     Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962-2) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 209. CONGRESSIONAL STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES.

       ``(a) In General.--It is the intent of Congress that--
       ``(1) national economic development and environmental 
     protection and restoration are co-equal goals of water 
     resources project planning and management; and
       ``(2) Federal agencies manage and, if clearly justified, 
     construct water resource projects--
       ``(A) to meet national economic needs; and
       ``(B) to protect and restore the environment.
       ``(b) Revision of Planning Guidelines, Regulations and 
     Circulars.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of the Corps of Engineers Modernization and 
     Improvement Act of 2004, the Secretary, in collaboration with 
     the National Academy of Sciences, shall develop proposed 
     revisions of, and revise, the planning guidelines, 
     regulations, and circulars of the Corps.
       ``(c) Additional Requirements.--Corps planning regulations 
     revised under subsection (b) shall--
       ``(1) incorporate new and existing analytical techniques 
     that reflect the probability of project benefits and costs;
       ``(2) apply discount rates provided by the Office of 
     Management and Budget;
       ``(3) eliminate biases and disincentives that discourage 
     the use of nonstructural approaches to water resources 
     development and management;
       ``(4) encourage, to the maximum extent practicable, the 
     restoration of ecosystems;
       ``(5) consider the costs and benefits of protecting or 
     degrading natural systems;
       ``(6) ensure that projects are justified by benefits that 
     accrue to the public at large;
       ``(7) ensure that benefit-cost calculations reflect a 
     credible schedule for project construction;
       ``(8) ensure that each project increment complies with 
     section 104;
       ``(9) include as a cost any increase in direct Federal 
     payments or subsidies and exclude as a benefit any increase 
     in direct Federal payments or subsidies; and
       ``(10) provide a mechanism by which, at least once every 5 
     years, the Secretary shall collaborate with the National 
     Academy of Sciences to review, and if necessary, revise all 
     planning regulations, guidelines, and circulars.
       ``(d) National Navigation and Port Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date 
     of enactment of the Corps of Engineers Modernization and 
     Improvement Act of 2004, the Corps shall develop and annually 
     update an integrated, national plan to manage, rehabilitate 
     and, if justified, modernize inland waterway and port 
     infrastructure to meet current national economic and 
     environmental needs.
       ``(2) Tools.--To develop the plan, the Corps shall employ 
     economic tools that--
       ``(A) recognize the importance of alternative 
     transportation destinations and modes; and
       ``(B) employ practicable, cost-effective congestion 
     management alternatives before constructing and expanding 
     infrastructure to increase waterway and port capacity.
       ``(3) Benefits and proximity.--The Corps shall give 
     particular consideration to the benefits and proximity of 
     proposed and existing port, harbor, waterway, rail and other 
     transportation infrastructure in determining whether to 
     construct new water resources projects.
       ``(e) Notice and Comment.--The Secretary shall comply with 
     the notice and comment provisions of chapter 551 of title 5, 
     United States Code, in issuing revised planning regulations, 
     guidelines and circulars.
       ``(f) Applicability.--On completion of the revisions 
     required under this section, the Secretary shall apply the 
     revised regulations to projects for which a draft feasibility 
     study or draft reevaluation report has not yet been issued.
       ``(g) Project Reformulation.--Projects of the Corps, and 
     separable elements of projects of the Corps, that have been 
     authorized for 10 years, but for which less than 15 percent 
     of appropriations specifically identified for construction 
     have been obligated, shall not be constructed unless a 
     general reevaluation study demonstrates that the project or 
     separable element meets--
       ``(1) all project criteria and requirements applicable at 
     the time the study is initiated, including requirements under 
     this section; and
       ``(2) cost share and mitigation requirements of this 
     Act.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 80 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962(d)-17) is repealed.
       (2) Section 7(a) of the Department of Transportation Act 
     (Public Law 89-670; 80 Stat. 941) is repealed.

     SEC. 102. INDEPENDENT REVIEW.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Affected state.--The term ``affected State'', with 
     respect to a water resources project, means a State or 
     portion of a State that--
       (A) is located, at least partially, within the drainage 
     basin in which the project is carried out; and
       (B) would be economically or environmentally affected as a 
     result of the project.
       (2) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     Independent Review appointed under subsection (c)(1).
       (b) Projects Subject to Independent Review.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that each 
     feasibility report, general reevaluation report, and 
     environmental impact statement for each water resources 
     project described in paragraph (2) is subject to review by an 
     independent panel of experts established under this section.
       (2) Projects subject to review.--A water resources project 
     shall be subject to review under paragraph (1) if--
       (A) the project has an estimated total cost of more than 
     $25,000,000, including mitigation costs;
       (B) the Governor of an affected State requests the 
     establishment of an independent panel of experts for the 
     project;
       (C) the head of a Federal agency charged with reviewing the 
     project determines that the project is likely to have a 
     significant adverse impact on environmental, cultural, or 
     other resources under the jurisdiction of the agency; or
       (D) the Secretary determines under paragraph (3) that the 
     project is controversial.
       (3) Controversial projects.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall determine that a water 
     resources project is controversial for the purpose of 
     paragraph (2)(D) if the Secretary finds that--
       (i) there is a significant dispute as to the size, nature, 
     or effects of the project;
       (ii) there is a significant dispute as to the economic or 
     environmental costs or benefits of the project; or
       (iii) there is a significant dispute as to the benefits to 
     the communities affected by the project of a project 
     alternative that--

       (I) was not the focus of the feasibility report, general 
     reevaluation report, or environmental impact statement for 
     the project; or
       (II) was not considered in the feasibility report, general 
     reevaluation report, or environmental impact statement for 
     the project.

       (B) Written requests.--Not later than 30 days after the 
     date on which the Secretary receives a written request of any 
     party, or on the initiative of the Secretary, the Secretary 
     shall determine whether a project is controversial.
       (c) Director of Independent Review.--
       (1) Appointment.--The Inspector General of the Army shall 
     appoint in the Office of the Inspector General of the Army a 
     Director of Independent Review.
       (2) Qualifications.--The Inspector General of the Army 
     shall select the Director from among individuals who are 
     distinguished experts in biology, hydrology, engineering, 
     economics, or another discipline relating to water resources 
     management.
       (3) Limitation on appointments.--The Inspector General of 
     the Army shall not appoint an individual to serve as the 
     Director if the individual has a financial interest in or 
     close professional association with any entity with a 
     financial interest in a water resources project that, on the 
     date of appointment of the Director, is--
       (A) under construction;
       (B) in the preconstruction engineering and design phase; or
       (C) under feasibility or reconnaissance study by the Corps.
       (4) Terms.--
       (A) In general.--The term of a Director appointed under 
     this subsection shall be 6 years.
       (B) Term limit.--An individual may serve as the Director 
     for not more than 2 nonconsecutive terms.
       (5) Duties.--The Director shall establish a panel of 
     experts to review each water resources project that is 
     subject to review under subsection (b).
       (d) Establishment of Panels.--
       (1) In general.--After the Secretary selects a preferred 
     alternative for a water resources project subject to review 
     under subsection (b) in a formal draft feasibility report, 
     draft general reevaluation report, or draft environmental 
     impact statement, the Director shall establish a panel of 
     experts to review the project.
       (2) Membership.--A panel of experts established by the 
     Director for a project shall be composed of not less than 5 
     nor more than 9 independent experts (including 1 or more 
     biologists, hydrologists, engineers, and economists) who 
     represent a range of areas of expertise.
       (3) Limitation on appointments.--The Director shall not 
     appoint an individual to serve on a panel of experts for a 
     project if the individual has a financial interest in or 
     close professional association with any entity with a 
     financial interest in the project.
       (4) Consultation.--The Director shall consult with the 
     Academy in developing lists of individuals to serve on panels 
     of experts under this section.
       (5) Notification.--
       (A) In general.--To ensure that the Director is able to 
     effectively carry out the duties of the Director under this 
     section, the Secretary shall notify the Director in writing 
     not later than 90 days before the release of a draft 
     feasibility report, draft general reevaluation report, or 
     draft environmental impact statement, for every water 
     resources project.
       (B) Contents.--The notification shall include--
       (i) the estimated cost of the project; and
       (ii) a preliminary assessment of whether a panel of experts 
     may be required.

[[Page S2553]]

       (6) Compensation.--An individual serving on a panel of 
     experts under this section shall be compensated at a rate of 
     pay to be determined by the Inspector General of the Army.
       (7) Travel expenses.--A member of a panel of experts under 
     this section shall be allowed travel expenses, including per 
     diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for an 
     employee of an agency under subchapter I of chapter 57 of 
     title 5, United States Code, while away from the home or 
     regular place of business of the member in the performance of 
     the duties of the panel.
       (e) Duties of Panels.--
       (1) In general.--A panel of experts established for a water 
     resources project under this section shall--
       (A) review each draft feasibility report, draft general 
     reevaluation report, and draft environmental impact statement 
     prepared for the project;
       (B) assess the adequacy of the economic, scientific, and 
     environmental models used by the Secretary in reviewing the 
     project to ensure that--
       (i) the best available economic and scientific methods of 
     analysis have been used;
       (ii) the best available economic, scientific, and 
     environmental data have been used; and
       (iii) any regional effects on navigation systems have been 
     examined;
       (C) receive from the public written and oral comments 
     concerning the project;
       (D) not later than the deadline established under 
     subsection (f), submit to the Secretary a report concerning 
     the economic, engineering, and environmental analyses of the 
     project, including the conclusions of the panel, with 
     particular emphasis on areas of public controversy, with 
     respect to the feasibility report, general reevaluation 
     report, or environmental impact statement; and
       (E) not later than 30 days after the date of issuance of a 
     final feasibility report, final general reevaluation report, 
     or final environmental impact statement, submit to the 
     Secretary a brief report stating the views of the panel on 
     the extent to which the final analysis adequately addresses 
     issues or concerns raised by each earlier evaluation by the 
     panel.
       (2) Extensions.--
       (A) In general.--The panel may request from the Director a 
     30-day extension of the deadline established under paragraph 
     (1)(E).
       (B) Record of decision.--The Secretary shall not issue a 
     record of decision until after, at the earliest--
       (i) the final day of the 30-day period described in 
     paragraph (1)(E); or
       (ii) if the Director grants an extension under subparagraph 
     (A), the final day of end of the 60-day period beginning on 
     the date of issuance of a final feasibility report described 
     in paragraph (1)(E) and ending on the final day of the 
     extension granted under subparagraph (A).
       (f) Duration of Project Reviews.--
       (1) Deadline.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), not 
     later than 180 days after the date of establishment of a 
     panel of experts for a water resources project under this 
     section, the panel shall complete--
       (A) each required review of the project; and
       (B) all other duties of the panel relating to the project 
     (other than the duties described in subsection (e)(1)(E)).
       (2) Extension of deadline for report on project reviews.--
     Not later than 240 days after the date of issuance of a draft 
     feasibility report, draft general reevaluation report, or 
     draft environmental impact statement for a project, if a 
     panel of experts submits to the Director before the end of 
     the 180-day period described in paragraph (1), and the 
     Director approves, a request for a 60-day extension of the 
     deadline established under that paragraph, the panel of 
     experts shall submit to the Secretary a report required under 
     subsection (e)(1)(D).
       (g) Recommendations of Panel.--
       (1) Consideration by secretary.--
       (A) In general.--If the Secretary receives a report on a 
     water resources project from a panel of experts under this 
     section by the applicable deadline under subsection (e)(1)(E) 
     or (f), the Secretary shall, at least 14 days before entering 
     a final record of decision for the water resources project--
       (i) take into consideration any recommendations contained 
     in the report; and
       (ii) prepare a written explanation for any recommendations 
     not adopted.
       (B) Inconsistent recommendations and findings.--
     Recommendations and findings of the Secretary that are 
     inconsistent with the recommendations and findings of a panel 
     of experts under this section shall not be entitled to 
     deference in a judicial proceeding.
       (2) Public review; submission to congress.--After receiving 
     a report on a water resources project from a panel of experts 
     under this section (including a report under subsection 
     (e)(1)(E)), the Secretary shall--
       (A) immediately make a copy of the report (and, in a case 
     in which any written explanation of the Secretary on 
     recommendations contained in the report is completed, shall 
     immediately make a copy of the response) available for public 
     review; and
       (B) include a copy of the report (and any written 
     explanation of the Secretary) in any report submitted to 
     Congress concerning the project.
       (h) Public Access to Information.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), the 
     Secretary shall ensure that information relating to the 
     analysis of any water resources project by the Corps, 
     including all supporting data, analytical documents, and 
     information that the Corps has considered in the analysis, is 
     made available--
       (A) to any individual upon request;
       (B) to the public on the Internet; and
       (C) to an independent review panel, if such a panel is 
     established for the project.
       (2) Types of information.--Information concerning a project 
     that is available under paragraph (1) shall include--
       (A) any information that has been made available to the 
     non-Federal interests with respect to the project; and
       (B) all data and information used by the Corps in the 
     justification and analysis of the project.
       (3) Exception for trade secrets.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall not make information 
     available under paragraph (1) that the Secretary determines 
     to be a trade secret of any person that provided the 
     information to the Corps.
       (B) Criteria for trade secrets.--The Secretary shall 
     consider information to be a trade secret only if--
       (i) the person that provided the information to the Corps--

       (I) has not disclosed the information to any person other 
     than--

       (aa) an officer or employee of the United States or a State 
     or local government;
       (bb) an employee of the person that provided the 
     information to the Corps; or
       (cc) a person that is bound by a confidentiality agreement; 
     and

       (II) has taken reasonable measures to protect the 
     confidentiality of the information and intends to continue to 
     take the measures;

       (ii) the information is not required to be disclosed, or 
     otherwise made available, to the public under any other 
     Federal or State law; and
       (iii) disclosure of the information is likely to cause 
     substantial harm to the competitive position of the person 
     that provided the information to the Corps.
       (i) Costs.--
       (1) Limitation on cost of review.--The cost of conducting a 
     review of a water resources project under this section shall 
     not exceed--
       (A) $250,000 for a project, if the total cost of the 
     project in current year dollars is less than $50,000,000; and
       (B) 0.5 percent of the total cost of the project in current 
     year dollars, if the total cost is $50,000,000 or more.
       (2) Treatment.--The cost of conducting a review of a 
     project under this section shall be considered to be part of 
     the total cost of the project.
       (3) Cost sharing.--A review of a project under this section 
     shall be subject to section 105(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2215(a)).
       (4) Waiver of limitation.--The Secretary may waive a 
     limitation under paragraph (1) if the Secretary determines 
     that the waiver is appropriate.
       (j) Applicability of Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The 
     Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall apply to 
     a panel of experts established under this section.

     SEC. 103. BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS.

        Section 308(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1990 (33 U.S.C. 2318(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) any projected benefit attributable to any change in, 
     or intensification of, land use arising from the draining, 
     reduction, or elimination of wetlands.''.

     SEC. 104. BENEFIT-COST RATIO.

       (a) Recommendation of Projects.--Beginning in fiscal year 
     2004, in the case of a water resources project that is 
     subject to a benefit-cost analysis, the Secretary may 
     recommend the project for authorization by Congress, and may 
     choose the project as a recommended alternative in any record 
     of decision or environmental impact statement, only if the 
     project, in addition to meeting any other criteria required 
     by law, has projected national benefits that are at least 1.5 
     times as great as the estimated total costs of the project, 
     based on current discount rates provided by the Office of 
     Management and Budget.
       (b) Review and Deauthorization of Projects.--
       (1) Review.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall review each water 
     resources project described in paragraph (2) to determine 
     whether the projected benefits of the project are less than 
     1.5 times as great as the estimated total costs of the 
     project.
       (2) Projects subject to review.--A water resources project 
     shall be subject to review under paragraph (1) if--
       (A) the project was authorized before the date on which the 
     review is commenced;
       (B) the project is subject to a benefit-cost analysis; and
       (C) an amount that is less than 33 percent of the estimated 
     total costs of the project (excluding costs of 
     preconstruction engineering and design) has been obligated 
     for the project.
       (3) Deauthorizations.--
       (A) In general.--On completion of the review under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit to Congress a list 
     that describes each water resources project the projected 
     benefits of which are less than 1.5 times as great as the 
     estimated total costs of the project.

[[Page S2554]]

       (B) Projects.--A project included on the list under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be deauthorized effective beginning 3 
     years after the date of submission of the list to Congress 
     unless, during that 3-year period, Congress reauthorizes the 
     project.
       (4) Deauthorized projects for which construction has been 
     commenced.--In the case of a water resources project that is 
     deauthorized under paragraph (3) and for which construction 
     (other than preconstruction engineering and design) has been 
     commenced, the Secretary may take such actions as are 
     necessary with respect to the project to protect public 
     health and safety and the environment.

     SEC. 105. COST SHARING.

       (a) Inland Waterways.--
       (1) Construction.--Section 102(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2212(a)) is amended--
       (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``One-half of the 
     costs of construction'' and inserting ``Forty-five percent of 
     the costs of construction''; and
       (B) by striking the second sentence and inserting ``Fifty-
     five percent of those costs shall be paid only from amounts 
     appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.''.
       (2) Operations and maintenance.--Section 102 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2212) is amended 
     by striking subsections (b) and (c) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Operation and Maintenance.--
       ``(1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     operation and maintenance shall be 100 percent in the case 
     of--
       ``(A) a project described in paragraph (1) or (2) of 
     subsection (a); or
       ``(B) the portion of the project authorized by section 844 
     that is allocated to inland navigation.
       ``(2) Source of federal share.--
       ``(A) General fund.--In the case of a project described in 
     paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) with respect to which 
     the cost of operation and maintenance is less than or equal 
     to 2 cents per ton mile, or in the case of the portion of the 
     project authorized by section 844 that is allocated to inland 
     navigation, the Federal share under paragraph (1) shall be 
     paid only from amounts appropriated from the general fund of 
     the Treasury.
       ``(B) General fund and inland waterways trust fund.--In the 
     case of a project described in paragraph (1) or (2) of 
     subsection (a) with respect to which the cost of operation 
     and maintenance is greater than 2 but less than or equal to 
     10 cents per ton mile--
       ``(i) 75 percent of the Federal share under paragraph (1) 
     shall be paid only from amounts appropriated from the general 
     fund of the Treasury; and
       ``(ii) 25 percent of the Federal share under paragraph (1) 
     shall be paid only from amounts appropriated from the Inland 
     Waterways Trust Fund.
       ``(C) Inland waterways trust fund.--In the case of a 
     project described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) 
     with respect to which the cost of operation and maintenance 
     is greater than 10 cents per ton mile but less than 30 cents 
     per ton mile, 100 percent of the Federal share under 
     paragraph (1) shall be paid only from amounts appropriated 
     from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
       ``(D) Non-federal responsibility.--
       ``(i) In general.--In the case of a project described in 
     paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) with respect to which 
     the cost of operation and maintenance is greater than 30 
     cents per ton-mile, the cost of operations and maintenance 
     shall be a non-Federal responsibility.
       ``(ii) Deauthorization.--In a case in which the Secretary 
     determines that the non-Federal interests for a project 
     described in clause (i) are unable to pay for the cost of 
     operations and maintenance of the project, the project is 
     deauthorized as of the date of that determination.''.
       (b) Flood Damage Reduction.--Section 103 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsections (a)(2) and (b), by striking ``35'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``50'';
       (2) in the paragraph heading of subsection (a)(2), by 
     striking ``35 percent minimum''' and inserting ``Minimum'''; 
     and
       (3) in the paragraph heading of subsection (b), by striking 
     ``35'' and inserting ``50''.
       (c) Beach Replacement.--Section 103(d)(2)(A) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(d)(2)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as 
     subparagraphs (C) and (D), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B) 2004 and subsequent projects.--For any project 
     authorized after the date of enactment of the Corps of 
     Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act of 2004, the non-
     Federal cost of the periodic nourishment of the project, or 
     any measure for shore protection or beach erosion control for 
     the project, shall be 65 percent.''.

                          TITLE II--MITIGATION

     SEC. 201. FULL MITIGATION.

        Section 906(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Projects.--
       ``(A) In general.--After November 17, 1986, the Secretary 
     shall not submit to Congress any proposal for the 
     authorization of any water resources project, and shall not 
     choose a project alternative in any final record of decision, 
     environmental impact statement, or environmental assessment, 
     unless the report contains--
       ``(i) a specific plan to fully mitigate losses of aquatic 
     and terrestrial resources and fish and wildlife created by 
     the project; or
       ``(ii) a determination by the Secretary that the project 
     will have negligible adverse impact on aquatic and 
     terrestrial resources and fish and wildlife.
       ``(B) Specific requirements.--Specific mitigation plans 
     shall ensure that impacts to bottomland hardwood forests and 
     other habitat types are mitigated in kind.
       ``(C) Consultation.--In carrying out this paragraph, the 
     Secretary shall consult with appropriate Federal and non-
     Federal agencies.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Standards for mitigation.--
       ``(A) In general.--To fully mitigate losses to fish and 
     wildlife resulting from a water resources project, the 
     Secretary shall, at a minimum--
       ``(i) acquire and restore 1 acre of superior or equivalent 
     habitat of the same type to replace each acre of habitat 
     adversely affected by the project; and
       ``(ii) replace the hydrologic functions and 
     characteristics, the ecological functions and 
     characteristics, and the spatial distribution of the habitat 
     adversely affected by the project.
       ``(B) Detailed mitigation plan.--The specific mitigation 
     plan for a water resources project under paragraph (1) shall 
     include, at a minimum--
       ``(i) a detailed and specific plan to monitor mitigation 
     implementation and ecological success, including the 
     designation of the entities that will be responsible for 
     monitoring;
       ``(ii) specific ecological success criteria by which the 
     mitigation will be evaluated and determined to be successful, 
     prepared in consultation with the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service;
       ``(iii) a detailed description of the land and interests in 
     land to be acquired for mitigation and the basis for a 
     determination that land and interests are available for 
     acquisition;
       ``(iv) sufficient detail regarding the chosen mitigation 
     sites and type and amount of restoration activities to permit 
     a thorough evaluation of the plan's likelihood of ecological 
     success and resulting aquatic and terrestrial resource 
     functions and habitat values; and
       ``(v) a contingency plan for taking corrective actions if 
     monitoring demonstrates that mitigation efforts are not 
     achieving ecological success as described in the ecological 
     success criteria.
       ``(C) Applicable law.--A time period for mitigation 
     monitoring or for the implementation and monitoring of 
     contingency plan actions shall not be subject to the 
     deadlines described in section 202.
       ``(4) Determination of mitigation success.--
       ``(A) In general.--Mitigation shall be considered to be 
     successful at the time at which monitoring demonstrates that 
     the mitigation has met the ecological success criteria 
     established in the mitigation plan.
       ``(B) Requirements for success.--To ensure the success of 
     any attempted mitigation, the Secretary shall--
       ``(i) consult yearly with the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service on each water resources project requiring 
     mitigation to determine whether mitigation monitoring for 
     that project demonstrates that the project is achieving, or 
     has achieved, ecological success;
       ``(ii) ensure that implementation of the mitigation 
     contingency plan for taking corrective action begins not 
     later than 30 days after a finding by the Secretary or the 
     United States Fish and Wildlife Service that the original 
     mitigation efforts likely will not result in, or have not 
     resulted in, ecological success;
       ``(iii) complete implementation of the contingency plan as 
     expeditiously as practicable; and
       ``(iv) ensure that monitoring of mitigation efforts, 
     including those implemented through a mitigation contingency 
     plan, continues until the monitoring demonstrates that the 
     mitigation has met the ecological success criteria.
       ``(5) Recommendation of projects.--The Secretary shall not 
     recommend a water resources project alternative or choose a 
     project alternative in any final record of decision, 
     environmental impact statement, or environmental assessment 
     completed after the date of enactment of this paragraph 
     unless the Secretary determines that the mitigation plan for 
     the alternative will successfully mitigate the adverse 
     impacts of the project on aquatic and terrestrial resources, 
     hydrologic functions, and fish and wildlife.
       ``(6) Completion of mitigation before construction of new 
     projects.--The Secretary shall complete all promised 
     mitigation for water resources projects in a particular 
     watershed before constructing any new water resources project 
     in that watershed.''.

     SEC. 202. CONCURRENT MITIGATION.

        Section 906(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(a)(1) In the case'' and inserting the 
     following:

[[Page S2555]]

       ``(a) Mitigation.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case'';
       (2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``interests--'' and all 
     that follows through ``losses),'' and inserting the 
     following: ``interests shall be undertaken or acquired--
       ``(A) before any construction of the project (other than 
     such acquisition) commences; or
       ``(B) concurrently with the acquisition of land and 
     interests in land for project purposes (other than mitigation 
     of fish and wildlife losses);'';
       (3) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(2) For the purposes'' 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Commencement of construction.--For the purpose''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Implementation.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     to ensure concurrent mitigation, the Secretary shall 
     implement--
       ``(i) 50 percent of required mitigation before beginning 
     construction of a project; and
       ``(ii) the remainder of required mitigation as 
     expeditiously as practicable, but not later than the last day 
     of construction of the project or separable element of the 
     project.
       ``(B) Exception for physical impracticability.--In a case 
     in which the Secretary determines that it is physically 
     impracticable to complete mitigation by the last day of 
     construction of the project or separable element of the 
     project, the Secretary shall reserve or reprogram sufficient 
     funds to ensure that mitigation implementation is completed 
     as expeditiously as practicable, but in no case later than 
     the end of the next fiscal year immediately following the 
     last day of that construction.
       ``(5) Use of funds.--Funds made available for preliminary 
     engineering and design, construction, or operations and 
     maintenance shall be available for use in carrying out this 
     section.''.

     SEC. 203. MITIGATION TRACKING SYSTEM.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a 
     recordkeeping system to track each water resources project 
     constructed, operated, or maintained by the Secretary, and 
     for each permit issued under section 404 of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344)--
       (1) the quantity and type of wetland and other habitat 
     types affected by the project, project operation, or 
     permitted activity;
       (2) the quantity and type of mitigation required for the 
     project, project operation or permitted activity;
       (3) the quantity and type of mitigation that has been 
     completed for the project, project operation or permitted 
     activity; and
       (4) the status of monitoring for the mitigation carried out 
     for the project, project operation or permitted activity.
       (b) Required Information and Organization.--The 
     recordkeeping system shall--
       (1) include information on impacts and mitigation described 
     in subsection (a) that occur after December 31, 1969; and
       (2) be organized by watershed, project, permit application, 
     and zip code.
       (c) Availability of Information.--The Secretary shall make 
     information contained in the recordkeeping system available 
     to the public on the Internet.

               TITLE III--ADDRESSING THE PROJECT BACKLOG

     SEC. 301. PROJECT BACKLOG.

       (a) Review and Report on Water Resources Construction 
     Backlog.--
       (1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       (A) Active.--The term ``active'', with respect to a 
     project, means that--
       (i) the project is economically justified;
       (ii) the project has received funding for--

       (I) preconstruction engineering and design; or
       (II) construction; and

       (iii) the non-Federal interests with respect to the project 
     have demonstrated willingness and the ability to provide the 
     required non-Federal share.
       (B) Deferred.--The term ``deferred'', with respect to a 
     project, means that the project--
       (i) has doubtful economic justification;
       (ii) requires reevaluation to determine the economic 
     feasibility of the project; or
       (iii) is a project for which the non-Federal interests are 
     unable to provide required cooperation.
       (C) Inactive.--The term ``inactive'', with respect to a 
     project, means that--
       (i) the project is not economically justified;
       (ii) the project no longer meets current and prospective 
     needs as described in a feasibility report or general 
     reevaluation report;
       (iii) the non-Federal interests with respect to the project 
     have not demonstrated willingness or the ability to provide 
     the required non-Federal share; or
       (iv)(I) the project most recently received, under an Act of 
     Congress, authorization or reauthorization of construction 
     more than 25 years before the date of enactment of this Act; 
     and
       (II) an amount that is less than 33 percent of the 
     estimated total costs of the project (excluding costs of 
     preconstruction engineering and design) has been obligated 
     for the project as of the date of enactment of this Act.
       (D) Project.--The term ``project'' means a water resources 
     project, or a separable element of a water resources project, 
     that is authorized by law for funding from--
       (i) the Construction, General, appropriations account; or
       (ii) the construction portion of the Flood Control, 
     Mississippi River and Tributaries, appropriations account.
       (2) Study.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives a study consisting of--
       (i) the list described in subparagraph (B); and
       (ii) the information described in subparagraph (C).
       (B) List.--The list referred to in subparagraph (A) is a 
     list of all authorized water resources projects--
       (i) that have not been commenced; or
       (ii) the construction of which has not been completed.
       (C) Required information.--Each project on the list 
     described in subparagraph (B) shall be accompanied by 
     information on--
       (i) the primary purpose of the project;
       (ii) the year in which construction of the project was 
     commenced;
       (iii) the total estimated cost of the project in current 
     year dollars;
       (iv) the benefit-cost ratio of the project, determined 
     based on current discount rates;
       (v) the estimated annual benefits and annual costs of the 
     project;
       (vi) the remaining additional benefits and the remaining 
     additional costs to complete construction of the project 
     (including the ratio that remaining benefits bear to 
     remaining costs);
       (vii)(I) the year during which the most recent major 
     studies of the feasibility and design of the project were 
     completed; and
       (II) the year during which the most recent environmental 
     impact statement or environmental assessment for the project 
     was completed;
       (viii) the date of the last year for which economic data 
     that was included in the most recent analysis of the 
     feasibility and justification of the project was collected;
       (ix) the status of each project as--

       (I) reconnaissance, preconstruction engineering and design, 
     or construction; and
       (II) active, deferred, or inactive; and

       (x) the information described in paragraph (3) for each 
     particular type of project.
       (3) Information for particular project type.--The study 
     under paragraph (2) shall include--
       (A) in the case of a flood damage reduction project--
       (i) the extent to which the project reflects national flood 
     damage reduction priorities as established by the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency;
       (ii)(I) the level of flood protection provided; and
       (II) to the maximum extent practicable, the extent to which 
     the project is based on projected growth and the basis for 
     each projection of growth; and
       (iii) the extent to which the project--

       (I) restores natural aquatic ecosystem functions; and
       (II) avoids adverse environmental impacts and risk before 
     implementation of mitigation activities;

       (B) in the case of a navigation project--
       (i)(I) the extent to which the economic benefits of the 
     project are based on existing levels of commercial traffic 
     rather than projected growth in commercial traffic; and
       (II) to the maximum extent practicable, the extent to which 
     the project is based on projected growth and the basis for 
     each projection of growth; and
       (ii) the extent of the likely environmental benefits of the 
     project, including the extent of--

       (I) remediation of contaminated sediments, or reuse of 
     dredged material, to restore aquatic habitat; and
       (II) adverse environmental impacts and risks of the 
     project; and

       (C) in the case of an environmental restoration project--
       (i) the extent to which the project--

       (I) restores natural hydrologic processes and the spatial 
     extent of aquatic habitat; and
       (II) otherwise produces self-sustaining environmental 
     benefits; and

       (ii) the extent to which the project addresses critical 
     national conservation priorities, including preservation and 
     protection of endangered and threatened species or habitat of 
     endangered and threatened species.
       (4) Measurement and reporting.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall use objective and 
     quantifiable standards for measuring and reporting the 
     information required to be submitted under paragraph (3).
       (B) Alternative method of reporting.--In any case in which 
     the information required to be submitted under subparagraph 
     (B)(ii) or (C) of paragraph (3) cannot be quantified, the 
     information shall be reported through an objective 
     description of the benefits and impacts of the applicable 
     project.
       (5) Availability to the public.--The study submitted to 
     Congress under paragraph (2) shall be made available to--
       (A) any person on request; and
       (B) the public on the Internet.
       (b) Project Deauthorizations.--Section 1001 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a) is amended 
     to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 1001. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Construction of a project.--The term `construction of 
     a project' means--

[[Page S2556]]

       ``(A) with respect to a flood control project--
       ``(i) the acquisition of land, an easement, or a right-of-
     way; or
       ``(ii) the performance of physical work under a 
     construction contract;
       ``(B) with respect to an environmental protection and 
     restoration project--
       ``(i) the acquisition of land, an easement, or a right-of-
     way primarily to facilitate the restoration of wetland or 
     similar habitat; or
       ``(ii) the performance of physical work under a 
     construction contract--

       ``(I) to modify an existing project facility; or
       ``(II) to construct a new environmental protection or 
     restoration measure;

       ``(C) with respect to a shore protection project--
       ``(i) the acquisition of land, an easement, or a right-of-
     way; or
       ``(ii) the performance of physical work under a 
     construction contract for a structural or a nonstructural 
     measure; and
       ``(D) with respect to any project that is not described in 
     subparagraph (A), (B), or (C), the performance of physical 
     work under a construction contract.
       ``(2) Inactive.--The term `inactive', with respect to a 
     project, means that--
       ``(A) the project is not economically justified;
       ``(B) the project no longer meets current and prospective 
     needs as described in a feasibility report or general 
     reevaluation report;
       ``(C) the non-Federal interests with respect to the project 
     have not demonstrated willingness or the ability to provide 
     the required non-Federal share; or
       ``(D)(i) the project most recently received, under an Act 
     of Congress, authorization or reauthorization for 
     construction more than 25 years before the date of enactment 
     of this subparagraph; and
       ``(ii) an amount that is less than 33 percent of the 
     estimated total costs of the project (excluding costs of 
     preconstruction engineering and design) has been obligated 
     for the project as of the date of enactment of this 
     subparagraph.
       ``(3) Physical work under a construction contract.--The 
     term `physical work under a construction contract' does not 
     include any activity relating to--
       ``(A) project planning;
       ``(B) engineering and design;
       ``(C) relocation; or
       ``(D) the acquisition of land, an easement, or a right-of-
     way.
       ``(4) Project.--The term `project' means a water resources 
     project, or a separable element of a water resources project, 
     that is authorized by law for funding from--
       ``(A) the Construction, General, appropriations account; or
       ``(B) the construction portion of the Flood Control, 
     Mississippi River and Tributaries, appropriations account.
       ``(b) Inactive Projects.--
       ``(1) List.--Not later than December 31, 2004, and 
     biennially thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a list of inactive projects.
       ``(2) Deauthorization.--An inactive project shall be 
     deauthorized effective beginning 1 year after the date of 
     submission of a list under paragraph (1) that includes the 
     project unless, during that 1-year period, Congress 
     reauthorizes the project in accordance with the Corps of 
     Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act of 2004 and the 
     amendments made by that Act.
       ``(c) Projects for Which Actual Construction Has Not 
     Begun.--
       ``(1) List.--The Secretary shall annually submit to 
     Congress a list of projects that have been authorized for 
     construction, but for which no actual construction has begun 
     and no Federal funds have been obligated for construction 
     during the 3 consecutive fiscal years preceding the fiscal 
     year in which the list is submitted.
       ``(2) Deauthorization.--A project authorized for 
     construction that is not subject to subsection (b) shall be 
     deauthorized effective beginning 5 years after the date of 
     the most recent authorization or reauthorization of the 
     project unless, during that 5-year period, Federal funds are 
     obligated for construction of the project.
       ``(d) Projects for Which Construction Has Been Suspended.--
       ``(1) List.--The Secretary shall annually submit to 
     Congress a list of projects--
       ``(A) that have been authorized for construction; and
       ``(B) for which no Federal funds have been obligated for 
     construction during the 2 consecutive fiscal years preceding 
     the date of submission of the list.
       ``(2) Deauthorization.--A project that is not subject to 
     subsection (b) but for which Federal funds have been 
     obligated for construction of the project shall be 
     deauthorized if Federal funds appropriated specifically for 
     construction of the project, as indicated in an Act of 
     Congress or in accompanying legislative report language, are 
     not obligated for construction of the project during the 
     period of 3 fiscal years following the last fiscal year in 
     which Federal funds were obligated for construction of the 
     project.
       ``(e) Completed Projects.--Subsections (b), (c), and (d) 
     shall not apply--
       ``(1) in the case of a beach nourishment project, after 
     initial construction of the project has been completed; or
       ``(2) in the case of any other project, after construction 
     of the project has been completed.
       ``(f) Congressional Notifications.--On submission of a list 
     under subsection (b), (c), or (d), the Secretary shall notify 
     each Senator in whose State, and each Member of the House of 
     Representatives in whose district, a project on the list is 
     or would be located.
       ``(g) Final Deauthorization List.--The Secretary shall 
     annually publish in the Federal Register a list of all 
     projects deauthorized under subsections (b), (c), and (d).''.
       (c) Waterways.--
       (1) Report by academy.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall enter into a 
     contract with the Academy to prepare a report on waterways in 
     the Inland Waterways System.
       (B) Contents of report.--The report shall--
       (i) review the Inland Waterways System;
       (ii) provide data on the commercial traffic being carried 
     by each waterway in the System as of the date of the report;
       (iii) provide an analysis of the extent to which prior 
     projections of the commercial traffic carried by each 
     waterway in the System were accurate; and
       (iv) based on the information provided under clauses (ii) 
     and (iii)--
       (I) identify underused waterways in the System;
       (II) propose new economic and environmental uses for 
     underused waterways;
       (III) describe statutory and administrative reforms that 
     are needed to ease the transition from the current authorized 
     uses of the System to new economic and environmental uses of 
     the System; and
       (IV) recommend which waterways in the System should be 
     decommissioned.
       (2) Decommissioning mechanism for underused waterways.--Not 
     later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary shall by regulation establish a mechanism for 
     the decommissioning of waterways that--
       (A) are no longer economically justified, based on 
     commercial traffic and current discount rates; or
       (B) are no longer in the national interest.

     SEC. 302. PRIMARY MISSION FOCUS.

       Any water resources project that does not have as a primary 
     project purpose 1 of the primary Corps missions of 
     environmental protection, flood control, or navigation and 
     that, as of the date of enactment of this section, has no 
     appropriated construction funding, is deauthorized.

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I am pleased to join my friend, Senator 
Feingold in cosponsoring this important and timely legislation. Today, 
the Senate is deliberating over the nation's budget priorities in the 
face of our enormous deficit.
  Historically, Congress has considered water projects, costing many 
billions of taxpayer dollars, as essential expenditures--regardless of 
the environmental costs or public benefits. The reforms of the Corps of 
Engineers' procedures in this bill are designed to achieve more cost-
effective expenditures for water projects that will yield more 
environmental, economic, and social benefits. The need for these 
changes has been acknowledged by many for some time, but never has the 
need to spend scarce taxpayer dollars wisely been as crucial as it is 
now.
  The Corps procedures for planning and approving projects, as well as 
the Congressional system for funding projects, are broken, but they can 
be effectively fixed. In fact, the reforms in this bill are based on 
thorough program analysis and common sense. I commend Senator Feingold 
for building on the legislation we introduced with Senator Smith in the 
last Congress to provide additional improvements. It is surprising that 
Congress hasn't already put these procedures in place, but there is no 
time or need like the present.
  Provisions of the legislation we are introducing today would modify 
the Corps planning and approval procedures to consider both economic 
and environmental objectives. Independent review of Corps projects and 
an increase in the cost-benefit factor would ensure that only 
beneficial projects are constructed. Effective measures for mitigation 
of environmental and other damage caused by projects would be required 
and monitored. The existing $56 billion project backlog is addressed 
and projects that have been suspended or never started for five years 
would no longer be considered.
  Water projects that provide economic and environmental benefits to 
our state citizens and all federal taxpayers serve the common good and 
reflect our common interest in fiscal responsibility. I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN:
  S. 2189. A bill to establish grants to improve and study the National 
Domestic Violence Hotline; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

[[Page S2557]]

                                S. 2189

       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 ``Domestic Violence 
     Connections Campaign Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) More than 500 men and women call the National Domestic 
     Violence Hotline every day to get immediate, informed, and 
     confidential assistance to help deal with family violence.
       (2) The National Domestic Violence Hotline service is 
     available, toll-free, 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, with 
     bilingual staff, access to translators in 150 languages, and 
     a TTY line for the hearing-impaired.
       (3) With access to over 5,000 shelters and service 
     providers across the United States, Puerto Rico, Alaska, 
     Hawaii, and the United States Virgin Islands, the National 
     Domestic Violence Hotline provides crisis intervention and 
     immediately connects callers with sources of help in their 
     local community.
       (4) The National Domestic Violence Hotline, which was 
     created by the Violence Against Women Act and is located in 
     Austin, Texas, answered its first call on February 21, 1996, 
     and answered its one millionth call on August 4, 2003.
       (5) Approximately 60 percent of the callers indicate that 
     calling the Hotline is their first attempt to address a 
     domestic violence situation and that they have not called the 
     police or any other support services.
       (6) Between 2000 and 2003, there was a 27 percent increase 
     in call volume.
       (7) Due to high call volume and limited resources, 
     approximately 26,000 calls to the Hotline went unanswered in 
     2002 due to long hold times or busy signals.
       (8) Widespread demand for the Hotline service continues. 
     The Department of Justice reported that over 18,000 acts of 
     violence were committed by intimate partners in the United 
     States each day during 2001. An average of 3 women are 
     murdered every day in this Country by their husbands or 
     boyfriends.
       (9) Working with outdated telephone and computer equipment 
     creates many challenges for the National Domestic Violence 
     Hotline.
       (10) Improving technology infrastructure at the National 
     Domestic Violence Hotline and training advocates, volunteers, 
     and other staff on upgraded technology will drastically 
     increase the Hotline's ability to answer more calls quickly 
     and effectively.
       (11) Partnerships between the public sector and the private 
     sector are an effective way of providing necessary technology 
     improvements to the National Domestic Violence Hotline.
       (12) The Connections Campaign is a project that unites 
     nonprofit organizations, major corporations, and Federal 
     agencies to launch a major new initiative to help ensure that 
     the National Domestic Violence Hotline can answer every call 
     with upgraded, proficient, and sophisticated technology 
     tools.

     SEC. 3. TECHNOLOGY GRANT TO NATIONAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 
                   HOTLINE.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General, in consultation with 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall award a 
     grant to the National Domestic Violence Hotline.
       (b) Use of Funds.--The grant awarded under subsection (a) 
     shall be used to provide technology and telecommunication 
     training and assistance for advocates, volunteers, staff, and 
     others affiliated with the Hotline so that such persons are 
     able to effectively use improved equipment made available 
     through the Connections Campaign.

     SEC. 4. RESEARCH GRANT TO STUDY NATIONAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 
                   HOTLINE.

       (a) Grant Authorized.--Not later than 6 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     and the National Domestic Violence Hotline, shall award a 
     grant to a university or other research institution with 
     demonstrated experience and expertise with domestic violence 
     issues to conduct a study of the National Domestic Violence 
     Hotline for the purpose of conducting the research described 
     under subsection (c), and for the input, interpretation, and 
     dissemination of research data.
       (b) Application.--Each university or research institution 
     desiring to receive a grant under this section shall submit 
     an application to the Attorney General, at such time, in such 
     manner, and accompanied by such additional information as the 
     Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services and the National Domestic Violence 
     Hotline, may reasonably require.
       (c) Issues to be Studied.--The study described in 
     subsection (a) shall--
       (1) compile statistical and substantive information about 
     calls received by the Hotline since its inception, or a 
     representative sample of such calls, while maintaining the 
     confidentiality of Hotline callers;
       (2) interpret the data compiled under paragraph (1)--
       (A) to determine the trends, gaps in services, and 
     geographical areas of need; and
       (B) to assess the trends and gaps in services to 
     underserved communities and the military community; and
       (3) gather other important information about domestic 
     violence.
       (d) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the grantee conducting the study under 
     this section shall submit a report on the results of such 
     study to Congress and the Attorney General.

     SEC. 5. GRANT TO RAISE PUBLIC AWARENESS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 
                   ISSUES.

       (a) Grant Authorized.--Not later than 6 months after the 
     submission of the report required under section 4(d), the 
     Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services and the National Domestic Violence 
     Hotline, shall award a grant to an experienced organization 
     to conduct a public awareness campaign to increase the 
     public's understanding of domestic violence issues and 
     awareness of the National Domestic Violence Hotline.
       (b) Application.--Each organization desiring to receive a 
     grant under this section shall submit an application to the 
     Attorney General, at such time, in such manner, and 
     accompanied by such additional information as the Attorney 
     General, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services and the National Domestic Violence Hotline, 
     may reasonably require.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated, 
     for each of the fiscal years 2005 and 2006--
       (1) $500,000 to carry out section 3;
       (2) $250,000 to carry out section 4; and
       (3) $800,000 to carry out section 5.
       (b) Availability.--Any amounts appropriated pursuant to the 
     authority of subsection (a) shall remain available until 
     expended.
       (c) Nonexclusivity.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to limit or restrict the National Domestic Violence 
     Hotline to apply for and obtain Federal funding from any 
     other agency or department or any other Federal grant 
     program.
       (d) No Condition on Appropriations.--Amounts appropriated 
     pursuant to subsection (a) shall not be considered amounts 
     appropriated for purposes of the conditions imposed under 
     section 316(g)(2) of the Family Violence Prevention and 
     Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10416(g)(2)).

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I want to relay a telephone number, a 
number that may not sound familiar but you can be sure is memorized by 
thousands of women across the country. 1-800-799-SAFE--the number for 
the National Domestic Violence Hotline. Each month, over 16,000 women 
and men call the National Domestic Violence Hotline. Open twenty-four 
hours a day, seven days a week, with a bilingual staff and a TTY-line 
for the hearing impaired, the National Domestic Violence Hotline 
provides immediate, informed and confidential assistance to those 
caught in family violence. Oftentimes, it is the first call a battered 
woman makes, even before calling the police or a friend.
  The Hotline is located in Austin, TX, but answers telephone calls 
placed anywhere in the United States and the U.S. territories. A 
distressed caller is connected to a trained advocate who is able to 
provide crisis intervention counseling, help create a safety plan, 
directly connect the caller with a local shelter or provide a range of 
local referral information. Using a massive database listing more than 
5,000 services nationally, one of 30 full or part-time advocates puts a 
caller in touch immediately with local programs offering shelter and 
direct care.
  I want to share with my colleagues two real-life stories from women 
who have called the Hotline. One caller dialed the Hotline after her 
boyfriend pulled a gun and threatened to kill her if she left him. 
Fearing for her life, she fled with her two young children. They ran to 
a nearby strip mall where she called the Hotline. As she told a Hotline 
advocate her story, she watched her abuser search for her in every 
store in the mall. Once a local shelter was contacted, arrangements 
were made to rescue the woman and her children from their hiding spot 
in a back alley behind the restaurant.
  An immigrant woman who spoke no English called from a community 
clinic. She had learned that for the past year her abusive husband had 
been raping their 15-year-old daughter. Her husband had no idea she was 
calling the Hotline. He had kept her so isolated on the ranch where 
they lived that she didn't even know her address. While the woman 
stayed on the line, an advocate contacted the sheriff's office and 
together they pieced together enough information to figure out her 
address. The sheriff made plans to confirm the child abuse at the 
daughter's school, after which the husband would be arrested 
immediately. After completing the exchange with the sheriff's office, 
the advocate contacted the nearest shelter and arranged to pick up the 
woman and her daughter at the clinic.
  These are real women who we see every day at work, at the grocery 
store

[[Page S2558]]

and at the school parking lot whose lives have been dramatically 
changed, in part, by that first call to the National Domestic Violence 
Hotline. Created by the Violence Against Women Act, the Hotline 
answered its first call on February 21, 1996, and its one millionth 
call on August 4, 2003. In the past decade we've witnessed a sea of 
change in how Americans view domestic violence. It is no longer treated 
as a private, family matter, but as a public crime. As public awareness 
has grown--as the Hotline's telephone number is posted on bus 
billboards and websites, in school offices and doctor's waiting rooms--
there has been a dramatic increase in calls. Between 2000 and 2001 
alone, call volume increased by 18.5 percent. In 2002, the Hotline 
answered almost 180,000 calls, an increase of 7.5 percent from the 
previous year. The Department of Defense recently requested that the 
Hotline accept calls from military personnel--a move that will 
certainly increase the call volume substantially.

  While the majority of the Hotline's day-to-day operating costs are 
paid with Federal dollars designated in annual spending bills, funding 
has not kept pace with the growing call volume and the Hotline's 
technology and telecommunication needs. This year, the spending bill 
appropriated only three million dollars to the Hotline. Older 
equipment, coupled with increased usage, has set the Hotline up to 
experience frequent problems with the network, data corruption and the 
lurking threat of a crash in the entire system. The Hotline tries to 
answer almost 500 calls a day with old computers and servers. Because 
the system is outdated and the staff is stretched thin, over 26,000 
calls last year went unanswered due to long hold times or busy signals.
  We need to answer each and every one of the calls to the Hotline. 
Today I am launching an innovative and far-reaching solution to the 
Hotline's problems, the Connections Campaign. The Connections Campaign 
is a public/private partnership that teams up private telecommunication 
and technology companies with the Federal Government to solve the 
Hotline's crisis. Under the Connections Campaign, the same companies--
Microsoft, Sony, BellSouth, Verizon Wireless, IBM, Nortel Networks, 
Dell and others--that supply Americans with home computers, cell phones 
and telephone service are donating hardware and software to the 
Hotline. Items like mapping software, networked computers, servers, 
flat-screened monitors and telephone airtime are being pledged to the 
Hotline. This is just the beginning of a multi-year, multi-million 
dollar initiative to place the Hotline squarely in the twenty-first 
century.
  On the public side of the partnership, I am proud to introduce the 
Domestic Violence Connections Campaign Act of 2004 which will provide a 
million dollars to train and assist the Hotline's advocates so that 
they may effectively use the improved equipment provided by the 
Connections Campaign. In addition, the Act creates a new research grant 
program to be administered by the Attorney General that will review and 
analyze data generated by the Hotline. Taking into consideration needs 
for caller confidentiality and security, researchers will study Hotline 
data to determine the trends, potential gaps in service and 
geographical areas of need. Within three years of enactment, 
researchers will release a comprehensive Hotline study to Congress and 
the Attorney General. Finally, my bill provides an $800,000 grant 
program for the Hotline to increase public awareness about domestic 
violence and the Hotline's services.
  One hand clapping simply does not make enough noise. Federal, State 
and local government cannot always supply all the answers and resources 
to resolve our communities' pressing problems. Today's Connections 
Campaign recognizes that big problems warrant grand, collaborative 
solutions. Cooperation between the Federal Government and the private 
sector is critical to enhance the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

  A cornerstone of the Violence Against Women Act was my conviction 
that ending domestic violence and sexual assault required a 
coordinated, community response. We worked hard to ensure that 
emergency room personnel, police officers, victim advocates, shelter 
directors and court clerks worked together to implement the many 
mandates of the Violence Against Women Act. The Connections Campaign is 
Act Two. We are now asking that the corporate community get actively 
involved to strengthen a key safety net for women and their families, 
the National Domestic Violence Hotline.
  Today's legislation and the kick-off is just the beginning of what I 
envision to be a lasting connection between the Hotline and the 
technology and telecommunications community. I look forward to coming 
back to the Senate floor to inform my colleagues about the new 
computers, wireless headsets, upgraded software and other technology 
that could be provided to the Hotline through the Connections Campaign. 
In the meantime, let me close by commending and expressing my gratitude 
to Sheryl Cates, the director of the Hotline and her dedicated staff 
who are providing the first step to safe, new lives for millions of 
battered women. They are truly doing God's work.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INHOFE:
  S. 2190. A bill to implement equal protection under the 14th article 
of amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and 
preborn human person; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Life at 
Conception Act. This bill is of utmost importance to future generations 
in America. Quite simply, it implements equal protection under the 
Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution for every born and pre-born 
person. It protects Americans' right to life by defining the term 
``human person'' as an individual at all stages of life, including, but 
not limited to, the moment of conception.
  The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment grants that no ``state 
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process 
of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal 
protection of the laws.'' Furthermore, it grants ``Congress shall have 
power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this 
article.'' It is time that we, the Congress, start enforcing this 
provision, start defending the Constitution, and start defending 
American lives.
  Even the Justices in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision conceded this 
point by making the admission: ``If this suggestion of personhood is 
established, the appellant's case [Roe], of course, collapses, for the 
fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the 
[Fourteenth] Amendment.'' Our Constitution is designed to protect the 
rights of all Americans, and give them the right to live and succeed. 
Right now, significant portions of Americans, who have no voice, are 
being killed, despite the explicit protections in the Fourteenth 
Amendment. Since 1973, more than 44 million babies have been sentenced 
to death without trial. We cannot tolerate this atrocity.
  Additionally, a 1999 Wirthlin poll found that 62 percent of Americans 
support legal abortion only in cases of rape, incest, or if the 
mother's life is in danger. How can we stand by and let so many 
children die even when public opinion is on our side? It is our role as 
legislators to uphold and enforce the Constitution, and it is our role 
as humans to defend those who cannot defend themselves. I urge my 
colleagues to follow their conscience, support this bill, and do what 
is right for America and for humanity.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kohl, and Mr. 
        Feingold):
  S. 2192. A bill to amend title 35, United States Code, to promote 
cooperative research involving universities, the public sector, and 
private enterprises; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Cooperative 
Research and Technology Enhancement Act of 2004 (the CREATE Act). This 
bill makes a narrow, but important change in our patent laws to ensure 
that the American public will benefit from the results of collaborative 
research efforts that combine the erudition of great public 
universities with the entrepreneurial savvy of private enterprises.

[[Page S2559]]

  Together, our universities and private enterprises have created a 
culture of innovation that has become America's greatest asset in an 
increasingly global economy. This culture of innovation encourages 
fundamental research--knowledge for its own sake. It also encourages 
the hard work needed to incorporate new advances in technology into 
actual products that reach the market and benefit consumers.
  While universities and private entrepreneurs can play complementary 
roles in our innovation economy, new opportunities to innovate arise 
when public institutions and private entrepreneurs combine their 
respective forms of expertise in collaborative, joint research efforts. 
President Lincoln would surely agree that this type of joint private-
public research effort is well-suited to add ``the fuel of interest to 
the fire of genius in the production of new and useful things.''
  As a result, we have long realized the enormous value of these joint 
research efforts, and we have long realized that their potential cannot 
be realized unless their participants can benefit from the intellectual 
property rights generated by such research. Unfortunately, the literal 
language of Section 102(g) of the Patent Act suggests that non-public 
information known to some members of a private-public research team can 
constitute ``prior art'' that may make the final results of the team 
research obvious, and thus not patentable. Because non-public 
information does not usually constitute ``prior art'' under the Patent 
Act, the potentially disparate treatment of such information crates a 
disincentive for entrepreneurs and public institutions to collaborate 
in joint research efforts.
  I believe that we must encourage--not discourage--public institutions 
and private entrepreneurs to combine their respective talents in joint 
research efforts. Indeed, Congress committed itself to this principle 
when it passed the Bayh-Dole Amendments to the Patent Act. The CREATE 
Act will simply conform the present language of the Patent Act to the 
intent that has always animated it.
  For the above reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the 
Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement Act of 2004. I also 
thank my colleagues in the House Committee on the Judiciary, 
particularly Subcommittee Chairman Lamar Smith and Chairman James 
Sensenbrenner, for their groundbreaking work on this important issue.
  I ask unanimous consent that the 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. 2192

       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 ``Cooperative Research and 
     Technology Enhancement (CREATE) Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS ON CLAIMED INVENTIONS.

       Section 103(c) of title 35, United States Code, is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(c)(1) Subject matter developed by another person, which 
     qualifies as prior art only under one or more of subsections 
     (e), (f), and (g) of section 102 of this title, shall not 
     preclude patentability under this section where the subject 
     matter and the claimed invention were, at the time the 
     claimed invention was made, owned by the same person or 
     subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
       ``(2) For purposes of this subsection, subject matter 
     developed by another person and a claimed invention shall be 
     deemed to have been owned by the same person or subject to an 
     obligation of assignment to the same person if--
       ``(A) the claimed invention was made by or on behalf of 
     parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on 
     or before the date the claimed invention was made;
       ``(B) the claimed invention was made as a result of 
     activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research 
     agreement; and
       ``(C) the application for patent for the claimed invention 
     discloses or is amended to disclose the names of the parties 
     to the joint research agreement.
       ``(3) For purposes of paragraph (2), the term `joint 
     research agreement' means a written contract, grant, or 
     cooperative agreement entered into by two or more persons or 
     entities for the performance of experimental, developmental, 
     or research work in the field of the claimed invention.''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--The amendments made by this Act shall 
     apply to any patent granted on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Special Rule.--The amendments made by this Act shall 
     not affect any final decision of a court or the United States 
     Patent and Trademark Office rendered before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, and shall not affect the right of any 
     party in any action pending before the United States Patent 
     and Trademark Office or a court on the date of the enactment 
     of this Act to have that party's rights determined on the 
     basis of the provisions of title 35, United States Code, in 
     effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the United States has from its inception 
recognized the importance of intellectual property laws in fostering 
innovation, and vested in Congress the responsibility of crafting laws 
that ensure that those who produce inventions are able to reap economic 
rewards for their efforts. Today, Senator Hatch, Senator Kohl, Senator 
Feingold, and I introduce the ``Cooperative Research and Technology 
Enhancement, CREATE, Act of 2004,'' legislation that will provide a 
needed remedy to one aspect of our nation's patent laws.
  When Congress passed the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980, the law encouraged 
private entities and not-for-profits such as universities to form 
collaborative partnerships in order to spur innovation. Prior to the 
enactment of this law, universities were issued fewer than 250 patents 
each year. That this number has in recent years surpassed two thousand 
is owed in large measure to the Bayh-Dole Act. The innovation this law 
encouraged has contributed billions of dollars annually to the United 
States economy and has produced hundreds of thousands of jobs.
  However, one component of the Bayh-Dole Act, when read literally, 
runs contrary to the intent of that legislation. In 1999, the United 
States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit ruled, in Oddzon 
Products, Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., that non-public information may in 
certain cases be considered ``prior art'' a standard which generally 
prevents an inventor from obtaining a patent. Thus some collaborative 
teams that the Bayh-Dole Act was intended to encourage have been unable 
to obtain patents for their efforts. The result is a disincentive to 
form this type of partnership, which could have a negative impact on 
the U.S. economy and hamper the development of new creations.
  However, the Federal circuit in its ruling invited Congress to better 
conform the language of the Bayh-Dole Act to the intent of the 
legislation. The ``CREATE Act'' does exactly that by ensuring that non-
public information is not considered ``prior art'' when the information 
is used in a collaborative partnership under the Bayh-Dole Act. The 
bill that my colleagues and I are today offering also includes strict 
evidentiary burdens to ensure that the legislation is tailored narrowly 
in order to solely fulfill the intent of the Bayh-Dole Act. I ask that 
my colleagues support the ``Cooperative Research and Technology 
Enhancement Act of 2004.''
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Bond):
  S. 2193. A bill to improve small business loan programs, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to revitalize a 
loan program crucial to the growth of small businesses in this country, 
and therefore crucial to our country's economy. This bill, the ``Smart 
Business Loan Revitalization Act of 2004,'' provides improvements to 
the Small Business Administration's largest business loan program, the 
``Section 7(a)'' program.
  This program proves that a small amount of government backing can 
greatly enhance private-sector financing for small businesses, and that 
the economic benefits can reverberate throughout the economy at large. 
More than $46.6 billion in 7(a) loans have been provided to small 
businesses over the last five Fiscal Years. This financing has helped 
small businesses to create or retain nearly 2 million more jobs over 
this five-year period.
  Today, we are losing thousands of American jobs to outsourcing and 
off-shore manufacturing. We measure net job increases in the ``few 
thousands.'' Given these circumstances, it is clearly to our advantage, 
and to the advantage

[[Page S2560]]

of the American people, to support improvements to any program that has 
already demonstrated an ability to create or retain nearly 400,000 
American jobs a year.
  Last year this program provided $11.2 billion in loans to small 
business owners and employees in towns and communities across America. 
This year, however, the SBA only requested a program size of $9.3 
billion. The fact that the SBA received a larger appropriation than the 
$9.3 billion it requested is powerful testament to the popularity of 
this program among small businesses. The SBA received sufficient 
appropriations, $79 million, coupled with $22 million in carried-over 
funds, to allow for a $9.55 billion program.
  Like last year, however, the demand for program funds in the first 
few months of Fiscal Year 2004 suggested that requests for the entire 
year would most likely exceed $11 billion. As a result, in January, 
2004, the SBA shut the program down, and then reopened it with a 
diminished loan cap of $750,000--37.5 percent of the $2 million maximum 
previously available. Faced with these restrictions, small businesses 
have urged Congress and the Administration to make the program fully 
operational for the rest of 2004.
  To this end, I have worked with a coalition of small businesses and 
lenders to construct a plan to improve the program for the remainder of 
this Fiscal Year. The plan would allow lenders to help alleviate the 
funding shortfall. It would benefit small businesses and lenders by 
allowing loans larger than $750,000, and by allowing loans with 
multiple participations.
  The bill would achieve these goals in three ways. First, lenders 
would return to the SBA a fee of 0.25 percent (or one-quarter of one 
percent) of new loans under $150,000, a fee that lenders are currently 
permitted to retain. Lenders may only retain this fee for loans of 
$150,000 or less--for loans greater than that size, lenders must return 
the fee to the SBA, as they have been required to do since the 
inception of the program. This proposal was first made by the SBA, as 
part of a larger plan the SBA recently submitted to Congress.
  Second, a lender fee on new loans would be increased from 0.25 
percent, one-quarter of one percent, to 0.35 percent. Finally, lenders 
would be permitted to provide small businesses with financing packages 
that include a 7(a) loan portion and a non-7(a), a strictly commercial 
portion, if the lenders paid the normal fees on the 7(a) loan portion 
and a 0.50 percent fee on the non-7(a) portion. Prior to January 2004, 
the SBA permitted this type of financing, but without receiving any fee 
income for the non-7(a) portion, and without an upper limit on the 
total financing, which I have set at $4 million.
  The ability of small businesses to receive loans larger than $750,000 
is a prerequisite to reviving the American economy. These loans provide 
needed capital for significant purchases and development by small 
businesses. More 7(a) loans represent longer-term loans than similar 
products available in the private capital market, and this allows small 
businesses to repay their 7(a) loans more gradually. I applaud the SBA 
for its desire to make more small loans to entrepreneurs without large 
capital needs, but I also urge the SBA to remember those entrepreneurs 
and small businesses who need more financing to strengthen and grow 
their enterprise, and to hire more employees. After encouraging 
entrepreneurs to start new small businesses, we cannot afford to forget 
their small businesses, or profess an inability to assist them when 
they need additional financing to grow.
  The benefits of this program are clear. It has the ability to help 
entrepreneurs to create jobs, to fulfill their dreams, and to support 
their families--all of this while building the kinds of energetic 
businesses our economy so desperately needs. The demands for this 
program is also clear. Small businesses have submitted more 
applications than the program could handle so far this year. The 
willingness of lenders to pay increased fees to meet the demand from 
small businesses for 7(a) loans is clear evidence the program works and 
remains attractive to lenders.
  The question we must answer now is whether we are willing to respond 
to small businesses and lenders and implement a solution which they 
have asked for, and which promises dividends for all involved, or 
whether we will ignore their requests, and miss an opportunity to 
transform a loan program that sustains almost 400,000 jobs a year into 
an initiative capable of creating two, three, four or even five times 
that amount. I don't want to miss that opportunity, my constituents in 
Maine can't afford to miss that opportunity, and I don't believe that 
your constituents can either. Almost every company listed today on the 
American Stock Exchange began as a small business. In the short term, 
this bill may save American jobs. But in the long term, it may save the 
American economy.
  I ask unanimous consent that the 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. 2193

       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 ``Small Business Loan 
     Revitalization Act'' .

     SEC. 2. COMBINATION FINANCING.

       (a) In General.--Section 7(a) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 636(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(31) Combination financing.--
       ``(A) Definitions.--In this paragraph--
       ``(i) the term `combination financing' means financing 
     comprised of a loan guaranteed under this subsection and a 
     commercial loan; and
       ``(ii) the term `commercial loan' means a loan of which no 
     portion is guaranteed by the Federal government.
       ``(B) Application.--A loan guarantee under this subsection 
     on behalf of a small business concern, which is approved 
     within 120 days of the date on which a commercial loan is 
     obtained by the same small business concern, shall be subject 
     to the provisions of this paragraph.
       ``(C) Commercial loan amount.--A small business concern 
     shall not be eligible to receive combination financing under 
     this paragraph unless the commercial loan obtained by the 
     small business concern does not exceed $2,000,000.
       ``(D) Commercial loan provisions.--The commercial loan 
     obtained by the small business concern--
       ``(i) may be made by the participating lender that is 
     providing financing under this subsection or by a different 
     lender;
       ``(ii) may be secured by a senior lien; and
       ``(iii) may be made by a lender in the Preferred Lenders 
     Program, if applicable.
       ``(E) Commercial loan fee.--A one-time fee in an amount 
     equal to 0.5 percent of the amount of the commercial loan 
     shall be paid by the lender to the Administration if the 
     commercial loan has a senior credit position to that of the 
     loan guaranteed under this subsection. All proceeds from the 
     loan guaranteed under this subsection shall be used to offset 
     the cost (as defined in section 502 of the Credit Reform Act 
     of 1990) to the Administration of guaranteeing loans under 
     this subsection.
       ``(F) Deferred participation loan eligibility.--
       ``(i) Maximum amount.--A small business concern may not 
     receive combination financing under this paragraph in an 
     amount greater than $4,000,000.
       ``(ii) Net amount.--The net amount of the deferred 
     participation share shall not exceed the maximum amount of a 
     net guarantee provided under paragraph (3)(A).
       ``(G) Deferred participation loan security.--A loan 
     guaranteed under this subsection may be secured by a 
     subordinated lien.
       ``(H) Availability.--Combination financing shall be 
     available under this paragraph notwithstanding any maximum 
     limitation on loans imposed by the Administration.''.
       (b) Sunset Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the first day after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and is repealed on October 1, 2004.

     SEC. 3. LOAN GUARANTEE FEES.

       (a) In General.--Section 7(a) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 636(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (18)(B), by adding at the end the 
     following: ``This subparagraph shall not apply to any loan 
     approved during the period beginning on the first day after 
     the date of enactment of paragraph (23)(A)(iii) and ending on 
     September 30, 2004.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (23), by amending subparagraph (A) to read 
     as follows:
       ``(A) Percentage.--
       ``(i) In general.--With respect to each loan guaranteed 
     under this subsection, the Administrator shall, in accordance 
     with such terms and procedures as the Administrator shall 
     establish by regulation, assess and collect an annual fee in 
     an amount equal to 0.5 percent of the outstanding balance of 
     the deferred participation share of the loan.
       ``(ii) First temporary percentage.--With respect to loans 
     approved during the period beginning on October 1, 2002 and 
     ending on the date of enactment of this clause, the annual 
     fee assessed and collected under clause (i) shall be equal to 
     0.25 percent of the outstanding balance of the deferred 
     participation share of the loan.

[[Page S2561]]

       ``(iii) Second temporary percentage.--During the period 
     beginning on the first day after the date of enactment of 
     this clause and ending on September 30, 2004, the annual fee 
     assessed and collected under clause (i) shall be equal to 
     0.35 percent of the outstanding balance of the deferred 
     participation share of the loan.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the first day after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and are repealed on October 1, 2004.

     SEC. 4. RECONSIDERATION OF LOAN APPLICATIONS REJECTED BASED 
                   ON LOAN AMOUNT.

       (a) Consideration of Loan Application Submitted Before 
     January 8, 2004.--Beginning on the first day after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Small Business Administration 
     shall reconsider any application submitted on or after 
     December 23, 2003 and before January 8, 2004, under section 
     7(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)) that was 
     rejected based on the loan amount requested before 
     considering any other application if the applicant is 
     otherwise eligible for financial assistance under that 
     section.
       (b) Export Working Capital.--Any small business that 
     received financing under section 7(a)(14) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(14)) before January 1, 2004, 
     and requests a renewal of such financing, shall have their 
     request approved regardless of the size of such financing 
     (subject to the limitations in section 7(a)(3) of such Act) 
     if the small business is otherwise eligible for such 
     financing under that section.
       (c) Maximum Loan Amount.--Ten days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Small Business Administration 
     shall allow loans under section 7 of the Small Business Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 636) up to the maximum amount permitted under the 
     Small Business Act.

                          ____________________