[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 14 (Thursday, February 10, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1261-S1307]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Leahy,
Mr. Allen, Ms. Cantwell, and Mr. Reid):
S. 337. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to revise the
age and service requirements for eligibility to receive retired pay for
non-regular service, to expand certain authorities to provide health
care benefits for Reserves and their families, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have long recognized that our country has
an obligation to take care of the brave men and women who wear the
uniform of the United States--and their families.
Sixty years ago we passed the GI Bill of Rights for the 16 million
veterans who served in WorId War II. By providing new opportunities in
housing and education, we helped them return to civilian life.
Our military forces have changed dramatically since then--but the
benefits we offer to military families haven't kept pace with the
changes.
Today our military relies on volunteers, and our security depends on
recruiting and retaining good troops--including members of the National
Guard and Reserves.
The Guard and Reserves serve at the command of State governors, but
members are also available to be called to active duty by the
President. And over the last 10 years, the role of the National Guard
and Reserves in our military has steadily increased.
Today, reports indicate that almost half of the forces deployed in
support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom come
from the National Guard and the Reserves.
These Guardsmen and Reservists are not only providing much-needed
``boots on the ground.'' They bring specific skills that our regular
active military cannot duplicate.
For example, in my home state of Nevada, half of the pilots in the
Nevada Air National Guard are civilian pilots.
A majority of the Nevada National Guard military police, who are in
the 72nd MP Company that just returned from Iraq, work as law
enforcement officers in Las Vegas.
And the Nevada Army Guard's 126th Medical Company an air ambulance
[[Page S1262]]
unit, which flew more than 174 traumatic medical evacuations in
Afghanistan, is made up entirely of men and women who work as civilian
paramedics.
So the National Guard and Reserves are strengthened by the fact that
members hold civilian jobs as pilots, police officers and paramedics.
The Guard and Reserves also provide the primary service--or the only
service--in several crucial areas of national security, including: port
security; airport security; civil support teams; and reconnaissance and
Drug Air Interdiction.
Since we rely more than ever on members of our National Guard and
Reserves, we need to modernize the benefits that are available to
them--especially in the areas of retirement and health care.
Let's start with health care.
It's true that service in the Guard and Reserve is a part time
obligation--but it is unlike any other part-time job that a person
might hold.
When the Guard and Reserves call, members must put their duty above
their regular jobs and even their families. That means taking time off
from their regular jobs . . . and forgoing many family activities
because they are busy fulfilling their Guard or reserve duties.
And it means being ready for deployment at any time.
In short, we expect members to make the Guard and Reserves a top
priority in their lives.
In return for that commitment . . . for the sacrifices they make at
their regular jobs . . . we owe them the peace of mind of knowing that
their families will receive quality medical care.
We need to offer medical care that leverages the existing military
health care system. That is why TRICARE should be an option for all
members of the National Guard and Reserves.
The lack of health care benefits for Guard and Reserve members is a
serious problem. Currently, about 40 percent of the enlisted members
don't have any health care coverage.
This affects troop readiness. In recent mobilizations, 10 to 15
percent of the Guard and Reserve members could not be deployed due to
health-related issues.
It also affects the state of mind of those who are training for
dangerous deployments. A Reservist in training on the weekend shouldn't
be worried about whether his or her sick child will be able to see a
doctor.
Providing better health care benefits to members of the Guard and
Reserve is not only the right thing to do--it's a matter of national
security.
We just also upgrade the retirement benefits available to those who
choose to serve for long periods of time.
A person who serves in the Guard or Reserve for 20 years is subject
to being called up to active duty numerous times, disrupting his or her
civilian career and retirement planning.
We must take this into account, and improve the retirement benefits
for Guard and Reserve members.
The current reserve retirement system is 50 years old, and it doesn't
reflect the extent to which our nation now depends on the National
Guard and Reserves.
This outdated system doesn't allow members to receive retired pay or
retiree health benefits until they are 60 years old. We must update the
system so those who serve can receive benefits at age 55, if they meet
all the other requirements.
This change would recognize the importance of the Guard and Reserves
in today's military . . . and it would recognize the sacrifices that
members make in their civilian careers in order to serve their country.
Once again, this is not only the right thing to do--it will make our
country stronger and safer by encouraging and rewarding service in the
National Guard and Reserves.
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Obama, Mr. Bayh, and
Mr. Lugar):
S. 341. A bill to provide for the redesign of the reverse of the
Lincoln 1-cent coin in 2009 in commemoration of the 200th anniversary
of the birth of President Abraham Lincoln; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to honor
Abraham Lincoln in 2009, the bicentennial of his birth, by issuing a
series of 1-cent coins with designs on the reverse that are emblematic
of the 4 major periods of his life, in Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, and
Washington, D.C. The bill would also provide for a longer-term redesign
of the reverse of 1-cent coins so that after 2009 they will bear an
image emblematic of Lincoln's preservation of the United States as a
single and united country.
Abraham Lincoln was one of our greatest leaders, demonstrating
enormous courage and strength of character during the Civil War,
perhaps the greatest crisis in our Nation's history. Lincoln was born
in Kentucky, grew to adulthood in Indiana, achieved fame in Illinois,
and led the Nation in Washington, DC. He rose to the Presidency through
a combination of honesty, integrity, intelligence, and commitment to
the United States.
Adhering to the belief that all men are created equal, Lincoln led
the effort to free all slaves in the United States. Despite the great
passions aroused by the Civil War, Lincoln had a generous heart and
acted with malice toward none and with charity for all. Lincoln made
the ultimate sacrifice for the country he loved, dying from an
assassin's bullet on April 15, 1865. All Americans could benefit from
studying the life of Abraham Lincoln.
The ``Lincoln cent'' was introduced in 1909 on the 100th anniversary
of Lincoln's birth, making the front design by sculptor Victor David
Brenner the most enduring image on the Nation's coinage. President
Theodore Roosevelt was so impressed by Brenner's talent that he was
chosen to design the likeness of Lincoln for the coin, adapting a
design from a plaque Brenner had prepared earlier. In the nearly 100
years of production of the ``Lincoln cent,'' there have been only two
designs on the reverse: the original, featuring two wheat-heads, and
the current representation of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC.
On the occasion of the bicentennial of Lincoln's birth and the 100th
anniversary of the production of the Lincoln cent, we should recognize
his great achievement in ensuring that the United States remained one
Nation, united and inseparable.
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. 341
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 ``Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial
1-Cent Coin Redesign Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds as follows:
(1) Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President, was one of the
Nation's greatest leaders, demonstrating true courage during
the Civil War, one of the greatest crises in the Nation's
history.
(2) Born of humble roots in Hardin County, Kentucky, on
February 12, 1809, Abraham Lincoln rose to the Presidency
through a combination of honesty, integrity, intelligence,
and commitment to the United States.
(3) With the belief that all men are created equal, Abraham
Lincoln led the effort to free all slaves in the United
States.
(4) Abraham Lincoln had a generous heart, with malice
toward none and with charity for all.
(5) Abraham Lincoln gave the ultimate sacrifice for the
country he loved, dying from an assassin's bullet on April
15, 1865.
(6) All Americans could benefit from studying the life of
Abraham Lincoln, for Lincoln's life is a model for
accomplishing the ``American dream'' through honesty,
integrity, loyalty, and a lifetime of education.
(7) The year 2009 will be the bicentennial anniversary of
the birth of Abraham Lincoln.
(8) Abraham Lincoln was born in Kentucky, grew to adulthood
in Indiana, achieved fame in Illinois, and led the nation in
Washington, D.C.
(9) The so-called ``Lincoln cent'' was introduced in 1909
on the 100th anniversary of Lincoln's birth, making the
obverse design the most enduring on the nation's coinage.
(10) President Theodore Roosevelt was so impressed by the
talent of Victor David
[[Page S1263]]
Brenner that the sculptor was chosen to design the likeness
of President Lincoln for the coin, adapting a design from a
plaque Brenner had prepared earlier.
(11) In the nearly 100 years of production of the ``Lincoln
cent'', there have been only 2 designs on the reverse: the
original, featuring 2 wheat-heads in memorial style enclosing
mottoes, and the current representation of the Lincoln
Memorial in Washington, D.C.
(12) On the occasion of the bicentennial of President
Lincoln's birth and the 100th anniversary of the production
of the Lincoln cent, it is entirely fitting to issue a series
of 1-cent coins with designs on the reverse that are
emblematic of the 4 major periods of President Lincoln's
life.
SEC. 3. REDESIGN OF LINCOLN CENT FOR 2009.
(a) In General.--During the year 2009, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall issue 1-cent coins in accordance with the
following design specifications:
(1) Obverse.--The obverse of the 1-cent coin shall continue
to bear the Victor David Brenner likeness of President
Abraham Lincoln.
(2) Reverse.--The reverse of the coins shall bear 4
different designs each representing a different aspect of the
life of Abraham Lincoln, such as--
(A) his birth and early childhood in Kentucky;
(B) his formative years in Indiana;
(C) his professional life in Illinois; and
(D) his presidency, in Washington, D.C.
(b) Issuance of Redesigned Lincoln Cents in 2009.--
(1) Order.--The 1-cent coins to which this section applies
shall be issued with 1 of the 4 designs referred to in
subsection (a)(2) beginning at the start of each calendar
quarter of 2009.
(2) Number.--The Secretary shall prescribe, on the basis of
such factors as the Secretary determines to be appropriate,
the number of 1-cent coins that shall be issued with each of
the designs selected for each calendar quarter of 2009.
(c) Design Selection.--The designs for the coins specified
in this section shall be chosen by the Secretary--
(1) after consultation with the Abraham Lincoln
Bicentennial Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts; and
(2) after review by the Citizens Coinage Advisory
Committee.
SEC. 4. REDESIGN OF REVERSE OF 1-CENT COINS AFTER 2009.
The design on the reverse of the 1-cent coins issued after
December 31, 2009, shall bear an image emblematic of
President Lincoln's preservation of the United States of
America as a single and united country.
SEC. 5. NUMISMATIC PENNIES WITH THE SAME METALLIC CONTENT AS
THE 1909 PENNY.
The Secretary of the Treasury shall issue 1-cent coins in
2009 with the exact metallic content as the 1-cent coin
contained in 1909 in such number as the Secretary determines
to be appropriate for numismatic purposes.
SEC. 6. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.
It is the sense of the Congress that the original Victor
David Brenner design for the 1-cent coin was a dramatic
departure from previous American coinage that should be
reproduced, using the original form and relief of the
likeness of Abraham Lincoln, on the 1-cent coins issued in
2009.
______
By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Snowe, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Murray,
Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Corzine, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Kerry,
and Mr. Dayton):
S. 342. A bill to provide for a program of scientific research on
abrupt climate change, to accelerate the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions in the United States by establishing a market-driven system
of greenhouse gas tradeable allowances, to limit greenhouse gas
emissions in the United States and reduce dependence upon foreign oil,
and ensure benefits to consumers from the trading in such allowances;
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to be joined with
Senator Lieberman in introducing the Climate Stewardship Act of 2005.
This bill is nearly identical to a proposal we offered during the 108th
Congress. It is designed to begin a meaningful and shared effort among
the emission-producing sectors of our country to address the world's
greatest environmental challenge--climate change.
The National Academy of Sciences reported:
Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere
as a result of human activities, causing surface air
temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.
Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over
the last several decades are likely mostly due to human
activities.
Again, ``temperatures are, in fact, rising.'' Those are the words of
the National Academy of Sciences, a body created by the Congress in
1863 to provide advice to the Federal Government on scientific and
technical matters. These comments were written after much thoughtful
deliberation and should not be taken lightly. The Academy has a 140-
year history and a strong reputation of service to the people of this
great country.
In October 2003, in response to the alarming changes in the climate
that are being reported worldwide, we were joined by a number of other
Senators in the first offering of our proposal for addressing climate
change for Senate consideration. We had a hard-fought debate and found
ourselves eight votes short of achieving a majority in passage. Today,
we resume what we finally can consider a worthy and necessary cause.
I state at the outset that this issue is not going away. This issue
is one of transcendent importance outside the boundaries of the United
States of America. If you travel to Europe today and visit with our
European friends, you will find that climate change/Kyoto treaty are
major sources of dissatisfaction on that side of the Atlantic with the
United States of America and its policies. But far more important than
that, the overwhelming body of scientific evidence shows that climate
change is real, that it is happening as we speak. The Arctic and
Antarctic are the ``miner's canary'' of climate change, and profound
and terrible things are happening at the poles, not to mention other
parts of the world.
Democracies usually respond to crises when they are faced with them
and, at least in the case of this Nation, we address problems and
crises that confront us and we move on. We are not very good at long-
term planning and long-term addressing of issues that face us in the
future. The divisions concerning the issue of Social Security are
clearly an example of what I just said.
If we do not move on this issue, our children and grandchildren are
going to pay an incredibly heavy price because this crisis is upon us,
only we do not see its visible aspects in all of its enormity.
Prime Minister Tony Blair, assuming the stewardship of the G-8, has
made it his highest priority. He has very aptly pointed out: Suppose
that all of the scientific opinion is wrong; suppose that the ice that
is breaking up in the Antarctic in huge chunks is just something which
is temporary; suppose that the glaciers receding in the Arctic at a
higher rate than at any time in history is something that is a one-time
deal; suppose that the melting of the permafrost in Alaska and the
Inuit villages collapsing into the ocean is a one-time thing; suppose
these increases in violent climate occurrences are all something that
are just temporary aberrations; suppose that happens to be true and we
have acted. Then the world and the Nation will be better off because we
would have developed technologies which are cleaner. We would have
taken actions to reduce what everybody agrees is harmful, and that is
excess greenhouse gases. And the Nation and the world would be better
off.
But suppose the scientists are right. Suppose that the National
Academy of Sciences report that says, ``Greenhouse gases are
accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities.
Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last
several decades are likely mostly due to human activities[ . . . ]'' is
right; suppose that Dr. Robert Corell, chair of the Arctic Climate
Impact Assessment, assessing the economic impacts and consequences of
the changing Arctic, and the Arctic Council, composed of the senior
officials from the eight Arctic countries that reached the conclusion
that the Arctic climate is changing rapidly; that over the past 50
years, temperatures across Alaska, Canada, and much of Russia have
increased 3 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit, with winter temperatures in these
areas increasing by up to 7 degrees Fahrenheit; that in the past 30
years, the Arctic has lost an area of annual average sea ice larger
than all of Arizona and Texas combined, with even stronger declines
observed in summer sea ice; that mountain glaciers have also receded
dramatically, and the snow cover season
[[Page S1264]]
has been shrinking; that greenhouse gas concentration continues to
rise; and even larger changes in climate are projected for the next 100
years; suppose they are right.
The observed warming is already having significant impacts on Arctic
people and ecosystems. Much larger projected climate changes will
result in even greater impacts on the people in the Arctic and beyond.
Increasing coastal erosion threatens many Alaskan villages. Warming is
also affecting the oil industry. The number of days in which oil
exploration and extraction activities on the tundra are allowed under
Alaska Department of Natural Resources standards has been halved over
the past 30 years.
The projected changes in Arctic climate will also have global
implications. Amplified global warming, rising sea levels, and
potential alterations in ocean circulation patterns that can have
large-scale climatic effects are among the global concerns. Melting
Arctic snow and ice cause additional absorption of solar energy by the
darker land surface, amplifying the warming trend at the global scale.
Recently, the Australians have predicted that the Great Barrier Reef
will be dead by 2050. What is the impact of coral reefs around the
world being bleached and dying on the food chain?
Dr. William Fraser, president of Polar Oceans Research Group,
testified that mountain ranges flanking the southeastern boundary of
the glacier, not visible 30 years ago, are emerging into full view. The
amount of ice-free land along the entire southwest coast of Anver
Island has been redefined by glacier retreat. Populations of the ice-
avoiding Chinstrap and Gentoo penguins have increased by 55 to 90
percent.
The coral reefs are the most biologically diverse ecosystem of the
ocean, as we all know. Almost 1,000 coral species currently exist. With
the majority of human populations living in coastal regions, many
people depend on living coral reef for food and protection from storm
surges.
Dr. Lara Hansen stated:
While the Great Barrier Reef is widely considered to be one
of the best managed reef systems in the world, local
conservation actions will not be sufficient to protect coral
reefs from the effects of climate change. To date, studies
indicate that the best chance for successful conservation in
the face of climate change is to limit the temperature
increase. . . .
ADM James Watkins, who was chairman of the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy, testified that climate change impacts every topic in the report
from the health and safety of humans, the health of environment and
fisheries to the distribution of marine organisms, including pathogens.
Admiral Watkins, former Chief of Naval Operations and former Secretary
of Energy, not a renowned environmentalist, went on to say climate
change is a serious problem, and it could affect all of the
recommendations from the report.
There will be people who will come to this floor and say that climate
change is a myth; it is not serious. They will find a scientist, they
will find some study group, some of them funded by people with special
interests here, but I hope that we will pay attention to Prime Minister
Tony Blair, who has made climate change one of the two issues he hopes
to address during his presidency of the G-8. This issue I believe is
very well understood by a majority of scientists in America.
I have a couple of pictures I will show. I see my colleague from
Connecticut is in the Chamber.
Recently, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the U.N.'s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, stated that he personally
believes that the world has ``already reached the level of dangerous
concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.''
He went on to say:
Climate change is for real. We have just a small window of
opportunity, and it is closing rapidly. There is not a moment
to lose.
The International Climate Change Task Force, chaired by Senator Snowe
and the Right Honorable Stephen Byers, Member of Parliament of the
United Kingdom, stated in 1 of its 10 recommendations concerning
climate change that ``all developed countries introduce mandatory cap-
and-trade systems for carbon emissions and construct them to allow
for future integration into a single global market.'' That is already
being done in Europe as we speak, which is the substance of Senator
Lieberman's and my legislation.
States are acting. Nine States in the East have signed on as full
participants in this initiative to elevate climate mitigation
strategies from voluntary initiatives to a regulatory program. The
State of California has approved a new State regulation aimed at
decreasing carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles. The States are way
ahead of us. I believe one of the reasons for that is because special
interests are less active in the States.
This is a chart that shows that the CO2 data has gone up from, as we
can see, 1860 to 2001.
This is a picture of the Arctic sea ice loss. The red outline is
1979. This was the Arctic sea ice, which is outlined in red. We can see
the size of the Arctic sea ice today. I made a visit with some of my
colleagues to the Arctic. We took a ship and stopped at where this
glacier was 5 years ago, traveling a number of miles and saw where that
glacier is today.
I want to emphasize again, the Arctic and the Antarctic are the
miner's canary of global warming because of the thinness of the
atmosphere there.
This chart is sea level changes in areas of Florida that would be
inundated with a sea level rise.
I usually have--it is probably not here--I usually have a picture of
Mount Kilimanjaro, which is known to many of us.
This is a chart of coral bleaching which is taking place as we speak.
If I can add a little parochialism, if I can show a picture of Lake
Powell in Arizona, it has been drying up since 1999, draining Lake
Powell to well below its high watermark. It is at an alltime low in its
seventh year. The lake has shrunk to 10 percent of its capacity.
The signs of climate change are all around us. We need to act. We
need to develop technologies and make it economically attractive for
industry to find it in their interest to develop technology which will
reduce and bring into check the greenhouse gas emissions in the world.
We need to do a lot of things, but a cap and trade, which would put
an end to the increase of greenhouse gases and a gradual reduction, is
an integral part.
Finally, I would like to return to my other argument in closing.
Suppose the Senator from Connecticut and I are deluded, that all of
this scientific evidence, all these opinions, people such as Admiral
Watkins in the oceans report, the National Academy of Sciences, the
literally hundreds of people in the scientific community with whom
Senator Lieberman and I have met and talked are wrong.
Here is the picture of Kilimanjaro in 1912, 1970, and 2000.
Suppose we are deluded, that we are tree-hugging environmentalists
who have taken leave of our senses and are sounding a false alarm to
the world, and we go ahead and put in a cap and trade, we encourage
technologies to be developed and funded, some by the Federal Government
in the form of pure research, and we do put a cap on the greenhouse
gases, we negotiate an alternate Kyoto Treaty with our friends
throughout the world--140 nations are signatories to the Kyoto Treaty--
and we join on the provision India and China have to be included and
other provisions which we have every right to demand, and we start
moving forward on this issue and we are wrong, that the year after
next, everything is fine in the world? Then we will have made probably
a significant contribution to the betterment of the world and the Earth
by reducing greenhouse gases, by developing cleaner technologies, by
doing good things, and then Senator Lieberman and I will come to the
floor and apologize for sounding this alarm.
But suppose, Mr. President, that we are right. Suppose the National
Academy of Sciences is right. Suppose the eight-nation research council
that is deeply alarmed at these effects in both the Arctic and
Antarctic is wrong; suppose Admiral Watkins is wrong; suppose the
Australian Government is wrong when it says the Great Barrier Reef is
going to be dead by 2050, and we have done nothing? We have done
relatively nothing besides gather additional data and make reports.
That is what the U.S. national policy is today: gather information and
make reports. I
[[Page S1265]]
would argue that is a pretty heavy burden to lay on future generations
of Americans.
I welcome the participation, friendship, and commitment of my friend
from Connecticut.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an
article entitled ``Arid Arizona Points to Global Warming as Culprit,''
and a response to Senator Inhofe's floor statement on January 4, 2005.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Feb. 6, 2005]
Arid Arizona Points to Global Warming as Culprit
(By Juliet Eilperin)
Tucson.--Reese Woodling remembers the mornings when he
would walk the grounds of his ranch and come back with his
clothes soaked with dew, moisture that fostered enough grass
to feed 500 cows and their calves.
But by 1993, he says, the dew was disappearing around
Cascabel--his 2,700-acre ranch in the Malpai borderlands
straddling New Mexico and Arizona--and shrubs were taking
over the grassland. Five years later Woodling had sold off
half his cows, and by 2004 he abandoned the ranch.
Reese Woodling, in white, used to own a 2,700-acre ranch,
but lack of rain reduced the grassland--his main source of
cattle feed.
``How do you respond when the grass is dying? You hope to
hell it starts to rain next year,'' he says.
When the rain stopped coming in the 1990s, he and other
Southwest ranchers began to suspect there was a larger
weather pattern afoot. ``People started talking about how
we've got some major problems out here,'' he said in an
interview. ``Do I believe in global warming? Absolutely.''
Dramatic weather changes in the West--whether it is
Arizona's decade-long drought or this winter's torrential
rains in Southern California--have pushed some former
skeptics to reevaluate their views on climate change. A
number of scientists, and some Westerners, are now convinced
that global warming is the best explanation for the higher
temperatures, rapid precipitation shifts, and accelerated
blooming and breeding patterns that are changing the
Southwest, one of the nation's most vulnerable ecosystems.
In the face of shrinking water reservoirs, massive forest
fires and temperature-related disease outbreaks, several said
they now believe that warming is transforming their daily
lives. Although it has rained some during the past three
months, the state is still struggling with a persistent
drought that has hurt its economy, costing cattle-related
industries $2.8 billion in 2002.
``Everyone's from Missouri: When they see it, they believe
it,'' said Gregg Garfin, who has assessed the Southwest's
climate for the federal government since 1998. ``When we used
to talk about climate, eyes would glaze over. . . . Then the
drought came. The phone started ringing off the hook.''
Jonathan Overpeck, who directs the university- and
government-funded Institute for the Study of Planet Earth at
the University of Arizona, said current drought and weather
disruptions signal what is to come over the next century.
Twenty-five years ago, he said, scientists produced computer
models of the drought that Arizona is now experiencing.
``It's going to get warmer, we're going to have more
people, and we're going to have more droughts more frequently
and in harsher terms,'' Overpeck said. ``We should be at the
forefront of demanding action on global warming because we're
at the forefront of the impacts of global warming. . . . In
the West we're seeing what's happening now.''
There are dissenters who say it is impossible to attribute
the recent drought and higher temperatures to global warming.
Sherwood Idso, president of the Tempe, Ariz.-based Center for
the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, said he does
not believe the state's drought ``has anything to do with
CO2 or global warming,'' because the region
experienced more-severe droughts between 1600 and 1800.
Idso, who also said he did not believe there is a link
between human-generated carbon dioxide emissions and
climate change, declined to say who funds his center.
The stakes are enormous for Arizona, which is growing six
times faster than the national average and must meet mounting
demands for water and space with scarce resources. Gov. Janet
Napolitano (D) is urging Arizonans to embrace ``a culture of
conservation'' with water, but some conservationists and
scientists wonder whether that will be enough.
Dale Turner of the Nature Conservancy tracks changes in the
state's mountaintop ``sky islands''--a region east and south
of Tucson that hosts a bevy of rare plants and animals. Human
activities over the past century have degraded local
habitats, Turner said, and now climate change threatens to
push these populations ``over the edge.''
The Mount Graham red squirrel, on the federal endangered
species list since 1987, has been at the center of a long-
running fight between environmentalists and development-
minded Arizonans. Forest fires and rising temperatures have
worsened the animals' plight as they depend on Douglas firs
at the top of a 10,720-foot mountain for food and nest-
building materials. The population has dipped from about 562
animals in spring 1999 to 264 last fall.
``They are so on the downhill slide,'' said Thetis Gamberg,
a U.S. Fish and Wildlife biologist who has an image of the
endangered squirrel on her business card. Atop Mount Graham,
the squirrels' predicament is readily visible. Mixed conifers
are replacing Douglas firs at higher altitudes, and recent
fires have destroyed other parts of the forest, depriving the
animals of the cones they need.
Environmentalists such as Turner worry about the
disappearance of the Mount Graham squirrel, the long-tailed,
mouselike vole and native wet meadows known as cienegas, but
many lawmakers and state officials are more focused on the
practical question of water supply.
Reese Woodling, in white, used to own a 2,700-acre ranch,
but lack of rain reduced the grassland--his main source of
cattle feed.
Arizona gets its water from groundwater and rivers such as
the massive Colorado, a 1,450-mile waterway that supplies
water to seven states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada,
New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.
The recent drought and changing weather patterns have
shrunk the western snowpack and drained the region's two
biggest reservoirs, lakes Mead and Powell, to half their
capacity. More precipitation is falling as rain instead of
snow, and it is coming earlier in the year, which leads to
rapid runoff that disappears quickly.
Scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography predict
that by 2090 global warming will reduce the Sierra Nevada
snowpack, which accounts for half of California's water
reserves, by 30 percent to 90 percent. ``It makes water
management more challenging,'' said Kathy Jacobs, who spent
two decades managing state water resources before joining the
University of Arizona's Water Resources Research Center.
``You can either reduce demand or increase supply.''
Water managers have just begun to consider climate change
in their long-term planning. Forest managers have also
started asking for climate briefings, now that scientists
have documented that short, wet periods followed by drought
lead to the kind of giant forest fires that have been
devastating the West.
This month, scientists at the National Center for
Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., published a study
showing that worldwide, regions suffering from serious
drought more than doubled in area from the early 1970s to the
early 2000s, with much of the change attributed to global
warming. A separate recent report in the journal Science
concluded that higher temperatures could cause serious long-
term drought over western North America.
C. Mark Eakin, a paleoclimatologist at the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration who co-wrote the study in
Science, said historical climate records suggest the current
drought could just be the beginning.
``When you've got an increased tendency toward drought in a
region that's already stressed, then you're just looking for
trouble,'' Eakin said. ``Weather is like rolling the dice,
and climate change is like loading the dice.''
Still, Arizona politicians remain divided on how to address
global warming. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has led the
national fight to impose mandatory limits on industrial
carbon dioxide emissions that are linked to warming, though
his bill remains stalled.
``We'll win on this issue because the evidence continues to
accumulate,'' McCain said in an interview. ``The question is
how much damage will be done until we do prevail.''
But other Arizona Republicans are resistant. State Sen.
Robert Blendu, who opposed a bill last year to establish a
climate change study committee, said he wants to make sure
politicians ``avoid the public knee-jerk reaction before we
get sound science.''
That mind-set frustrates ranchers such as Woodling, who is
raising 10 grass-fed cows on a leased pasture. At age 69, he
will never be able to rebuild his herd, he said, but he
believes politicians have an obligation to help restore the
environment.
``Man has been a great cause of this, and man needs to
address it,'' he said.
____
USCAN Rebuttal to Key Points in Senator Inhofe's Floor Statement,
January 4, 2005
The following individuals contributed to this response:
U.S. Delegation at COP10, Debbie Reed, National Environmental
Trust; EU Targets: Jeff Fiedler, Natural Resources Defense
Council; Scientific Consensus: Brenda Ekwurzel, Julie
Anderson Union of Concerned Scientists; and Costs: Ansje
Miller, Environmental Justice and Climate Change Initiative.
For more information or with any questions, contact: Lee
Hayes Byron, U.S. Climate Action Network,
I[email protected], 202-513-6240.
U.S. Delegation at COP10
Senator Inhofe's characterization of Under Secretary Paula
Dobriansky's rebuff at attempts to ``drag the U.S. into
discussions concerning post-Kyoto climate change
commitments'' at the recent UNFCCC conference in Buenos Aires
is only partially accurate. Ms. Dobriansky did, indeed make
clear the fact that the Bush administration believes that
post-2012 talks are ``premature.'' Some countries, including
the E.U., were indeed hopeful that the U.S., the world's
largest emitter of greenhouse gas pollution, would join post-
2012 discussions, having previously
[[Page S1266]]
withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol, and having proclaimed
domestic action to reduce GHG emissions, despite the fact
that U.S. emissions continue to increase unabated. Senator
Inhofe's material omission from this statement, however, is
illustrative of his and the Bush administration's true goals:
to prevent the rest of the world from making progress on
reducing global GHG emissions. What Senator Inhofe failed to
mention in his diatribe was that the Bush administration in
Buenos Aires not only demurred from participating in these
discussions, but also acted to prevent the rest of the
world's countries from beginning those discussions even in
the absence of U.S. participation. Without objections from
the United States, the post-20l2 discussions could have
begun, and would have allowed some ideas and suggestions for
the post-20l2 period to be presented to the next meeting of
the UNFCCC in November, 2005. But Under Secretary Dobriansky
and the Bush administration objected and threw up every
possible obstacle to allowing other countries to have those
discussions, with or without the U.S. The result is that one
multiple-day meeting, with a narrowly defined agenda to
discuss post-2012 strategies was agreed to--but the exact
nature of the discussions, and the ability of the meeting's
participants to report to the UNFCCC in November 2005 was a
matter of disagreement even as the agreement was made. It is
highly likely that the meeting itself will be contentious,
for these reasons. But the real question is why the U.S.
insists on blocking the rest of the world from moving on,
even if it chooses not to? Senator Inhofe would better serve
his constituents and his colleagues to accurately and
completely report the Administration's actions at the
meeting.
Similarly, the Senator reported that there was discussion
but no resolution at the meeting on how to address emissions
from developing countries. He claimed that developing
countries, ``most notably China, remained adamant in Buenos
Aires in opposing any mandatory greenhouse gas reductions,
now or in the future.'' Again, his material omission is
significant. The United States remained adamant in Buenos
Aires in opposing any mandatory greenhouse gas reductions,
now or in the future. And the United States urged China and
India to do the same. The Bush administration's duplicity--
claiming that they will not act until China and India do, and
then visibly and vocally urging China and India not to act--
is unconscionable, as is Senator Inhofe's. And the Senator
perhaps should acknowledge the fact that, since the Senate
passed the Byrd-Hagel resolution in 1997, it has passed three
additional resolutions on climate change--all of which
clearly state that climate change is happening and that the
United States should take a credible, leadership role in
combating global warming--including by re-engaging in the
international climate change negotiations. Paula Dobriansky,
when asked whether the Bush administration knew of these
resolutions, and if so, whether they intended to comply, said
``yes,'' they were fully aware of resolutions, but ``no'',
they had no intention of complying. If that is the case, so
be it--but let's be honest and open about it, Senator Inhofe.
EU Targets
In contrast to Senator Inhofe's contention that ``most EU
member states will not meet their Kyoto targets and have no
real intentions of doing so,'' a recent analysis by the
European Environment Agency (EEA) concluded that the EU is in
fact on track to meet its Kyoto targets. This analysis
examined existing and planned policies, as well as the use of
the Kyoto emissions trading measures.
Looking only at policies that were being implemented at the
time of the analysis, EEA projected that the EU would indeed
fall short of its targets (with emissions 1% below 1990
instead of 8%). However, looking at planned policies, the EU
is on track to exceed its -8% target. Domestic EU policies
alone are projected to achieve a 7.7% reduction. The small
remaining gap is covered by international emission reduction
projects for which funds have already been budgeted.
The effect of ``planned policies'' cannot be dismissed as
wishful thinking. Included in the list of ``planned
policies'' is the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, a mandatory
cap-and-trade policy for large stationary sources, which
started operation this year. Many other EU-wide policies have
been adopted by the EU Council and Parliament, and are now
being incorporated into law by EU member states. These
policies include measures to promote renewable electricity
production, increase building efficiency, and restructure
energy taxes. A complete list of future policies that are in
advanced stages is available in EEA 2004, at page 21.
The EEA projections cited above exclude two additional
means of meeting the targets. First, activities in the forest
and agriculture sectors are projected to contribute an
additional 0.7% emission reduction. Second, the EU can make
up any shortfall in existing and planned policies by using
the Kyoto Protocol's International Emissions Trading system,
ironically an element of the protocol designed by the US.
Under this system EU countries will be able to purchase
emissions allowances from other Kyoto countries. This
includes Russia, which by most projections will have
significant excess allowances. Therefore, although it is
environmentally preferable for the EU to meet its Kyoto
targets solely through domestic policies, it is almost
inconceivable that the EU would not be able to achieve
compliance through the purchase of Russian allowances.
Hockey Stick
Senator Inhofe made the following statements regarding
research that reconstructs northern hemisphere temperature
over the past millennium. ``The conclusion inferred from the
hockey stick is that industrialization, which spawned
widespread use of fossil fuels, is causing the planet to
warm. I spent considerable time examining this work in my
2003 speech. Because Mann effectively erased the well-known
phenomena of the Medieval Warming Period--when, by the way,
it was warmer than it is today--and the Little Ice Age, I
didn't find it very credible. I find it even less credible
now.'' Senator Inhofe went on to state, ``In other words, in
obliterating the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice
Age, Mann's hockey stick just doesn't pass muster.''
Recent warming trends are confirmed by many independent and
reinforcing . indicators. Direct temperature measurements
from the past 140 years, combined with past temperature
measurements inferred from tree rings, ice cores, and annual
sediment layers, show that average northern hemisphere
temperatures in the late 20th century are higher than they
have been in the last 1,000 years. More recent publications
push the temperature reconstruction back to 1,800 years.
Indeed, the last 10 years (1995-2004), excluding 1996, are
the warmest in the instrumental record from 1861 to the
present. This unprecedented recent warming trend is one of
many pieces of evidence that ties global warming to human-
caused emissions of heat-trapping gases from land-use change
and fossil fuel burning.
Heat-trapping gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2)
absorb energy emitted from the earth's surface and radiate it
back downward to warm the lower atmosphere and the surface.
The general correlation between temperature and atmospheric
CO2 concentration is apparent in ice core records
at many locations at the poles and in the temperate and
tropical regions throughout the world. The Antarctic ice core
records vividly illustrate that current atmospheric carbon
dioxide levels are unmatched during the past 420,000 years.
Furthermore, CO2 concentration has risen a
dramatic 30 percent in the last 150 years. When scientists
compare the timing of the recent rise in atmospheric carbon
dioxide concentrations with the magnitude of other factors
that influence climate--solar variation, volcanic eruptions,
and pollutant emissions such as sulfur dioxide--the link
between recent warming and human activities is
unmistakable.
(2) Debate over the ``hockey stick'' temperature
reconstruction is largely irrelevant to our current policy
choices. The shape of the sharp rise in northern hemisphere
average temperature, at the end of the last millennium, led
to the common practice of referring to the plot as the
``hockey stick'' figure. Projections of future climate
changes, however, are based on the well-known physics linking
increasing heat-trapping gas concentrations to conditions at
the earth's surface, and these projections do not depend on
details of the earth's temperature hundreds of years ago.
Thus, debate over the ``hockey stick'' temperature
reconstruction is largely irrelevant to our current policy
choices. Nevertheless, because the scientific debate on this
issue has been misinterpreted, most recently in Senator
Inhofe's January 4, 2005 speech, it is worth clarifying a few
points.
The hockey stick analysis is one of many independent
reinforcing indicators of the recent warming. For example,
glacier melting is increasing, sea level is rising, and many
species' ranges are shifting.
The hockey stick reconstruction represents the average
temperature across the entire northern hemisphere--an average
of many measurements taken from locations north of the
equator. This averaging is important because local
temperatures can vary considerably for many climatological
reasons, and so a hemispheric average gives a truer picture
of a warming climate. Therefore, looking at regional data in
isolation, such as temperatures from the ``Medieval Warm
Period'' in the North Atlantic area, and to therefore claim
that the hockey stick temperature reconstruction is invalid,
is inaccurate.
Additional Remarks
In criticizing the ``hockey stick'' temperature record,
Senator Inhofe charges that the Mann analysis has been
criticized in the pages of Geophysical Research Letters
(GRL), a respected, peer-reviewed journal, as ``just bad
science.'' This quote does actually appear in GRL in a
commentary by Chapman et al. (2004), but Inhofe's citation is
quite misleading.
The criticism leveled by Chapman et al did not apply to the
``hockey stick''-that is, the 1OOO-year temperature
reconstruction by Mann and others. Rather, the Chapman et al.
criticism was leveled at a totally different, much more
narrow and technical modeling study by Mann and Schmidt in
2003 about borehole reconstructions.
Arctic
Senator Inhofe asserted, using the words of Dr. George
Taylor from Oregon, that the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
``appears to be guilty of selective use of data. Many of the
trends described in the document begin in the 1960s or 1970s.
. . . Yet data are readily available for the 1930s and early
1940s, when temperatures were comparable to (and probably
higher than) those observed today.''
[[Page S1267]]
(1) Temperature trends and sea ice trends shown in the
Arctic report are century long trends, from 1900-2000.
Therefore, Senator Inhofe's attack on the scientific
integrity of the Arctic impact assessment is inappropriate.
(2) Arctic researchers concluded that the recent warming,
in contrast to the earlier warming during the 1930s and
1940s, is in response to human activities. No one disputes
that Arctic temperatures were almost as high in the 1930s and
1940s as they are now, least of all the scientists involved
in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. The conclusion that
the Arctic is now experiencing a stronger, longer, and more
widespread warming trend is based on a robust combination of
temperature measurements, sea ice retreat, glacial melting,
and increasing permafrost temperatures. For example, the
century-long sea ice record clearly shows a strong retreat in
sea ice extent in recent decades, whereas no such trend is
evident during the earlier warm period.
Scientists have employed observations and models to analyze
these two pronounced twentieth-century warming events, both
amplified in the Arctic, and found that the earlier warming
was due to natural internal climate-system variability and
was not as widespread as today's, whereas the recent warming
is in response to human activities.
Furthermore, earlier periods of warming either this century
or in past centuries do not preclude a human influence on the
current warming trend. By way of analogy, just because
wildfires are often caused by lightning does not mean that
they cannot also be caused by a careless camper. The same can
be said for carbon dioxide--just because it has natural
sources does not mean that humans do not also contribute to
atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and thereby contribute to
the resulting warming.
Sea Level Rise
Sea level talking points
Senator Inhofe stated: ``But in a study published this year
in Global and Planetary Change, Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of
Sweden found that sea level rise hysteria is overblown. In
his study, which relied not only on observational records,
but also on satellites, he concluded: `There is a total
absence of any recent `acceleration in sea level rise' as
often claimed by IPCC and related groups.' Yet we still hear
of a future world overwhelmed by floods due to global
warming. Such claims are completely out of touch with
science. As Sweden's Morner puts it, `there is no fear of
massive future flooding as claimed in most global warming
scenarios.' ''
(1) Research and observation has solidly established that
sea level is rising. Our longest historical records come from
tide gauge measurements taken along the world's coastlines.
These measurements indicate that the globally averaged
coastal sea level rose at a rate of about 3.5 inches over 50
years (or 0.7 inch per decade since 1950). Since 1993,
satellites have continuously measured sea level over the
entire ocean, not just along the shoreline as do tide gauges.
Satellite measurements can monitor global sea level with a
greater accuracy, and they record a higher global sea-level
rise rate of about 1 inch per decade. Given the short record
of these satellite measurements, scientists cannot yet
conclude if the last decade was unusually high or if it
represents an acceleration of sea level rise.
(2) Global sea-level rise is primarily the result of
expansion of seawater as it warms plus meltwater from land-
based ice sheets and land-based mountain glaciers. Many
factors contribute to sea level rise, and scientific efforts
continue to refine our understanding of the relative
contribution of each to the observed sea-level rise. As the
climate warms, we expect to see two different effects in the
ocean. First, sea level rises as the ocean temperature
increases. Just as a gas expands when it is heated, water
also expands as its temperature rises. Second, the amount of
water entering the ocean increases as land-based ice sheets
and glaciers melt. Increased meltwater adds more freshwater
to the ocean and increases sea level, just like adding water
to a bathtub. This influx of freshwater also lowers the
oceans' salinity. Recent research suggests that all
continental sources added the equivalent of about 2.7 inches
of fresh water over 50 years to the ocean.
(3) Rising sea levels increase the impacts from coastal
hazards. Because of the steadily rising seas we can expect
increased damage to coastal communities around the world.
Sea-level rise increases coastal erosion, further inundates
coastal wetlands, increases the salinity in estuaries and
pushes saltwater further landward in coastal rivers,
contaminates coastal freshwater aquifers with saltwater, and
increases the risks from flooding. Coastal storms of the same
intensity as in the past will create greater damage in the
future simply because the baseline sea level is higher.
Low-lying coastlands such as Louisiana, Florida,
Bangladesh, and the Maldives will be impacted most
acutely.
costs
Senator Inhofe claimed that Kyoto-like policies harm
Americans, especially the poor and minorities. This statement
is a false scare tactic directed at our most vulnerable
communities. The well-documented truth is that not taking
action to slow global warning harms Americans, especially the
poor and minorities.
Global warming is already hurting Americans, especially the
poor, its Indigenous Peoples, and people of color, and is
projected to get worse if we don't act now.
People of color communities--already burdened with poor air
quality and twice as likely to be uninsured as whites will
become even more vulnerable to climate change related
respiratory ailments, heat-related illness and death, and
illness from insect-carried diseases.
Scientists have determined that the ice in Alaska and the
Arctic region is melting so rapidly that much of it could be
gone by the end of the century. The results could be
catastrophic for polar-region Indigenous peoples and animals,
while low-lying lands as far away as Florida could be
inundated by rising sea levels.
``We found that scientific observations and those of
Indigenous people over many generations are meshing . . . Sea
ice is retreating, glaciers are reducing in size, permafrost
is thawing, all [these indicators] provide strong evidence
that it has been warming rapidly in the Arctic in recent
decades.''--Susan Joy Hassol, global warming analyst and
author of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA)
synthesis report Impacts of a Warming Arctic.
Flooding and erosion affects 184 out of 213, or 86 percent,
of Alaska Native Villages to some extent. While many of the
problems are long-standing, various studies indicate that
coastal villages are becoming more susceptible to flooding
and erosion caused in part by rising temperatures. Four
villages--Kivalina, Koyukuk, Newtok, and Shismaref--are
in imminent danger and are planning to relocate. Costs for
relocation could be high--from $100-$400 million per
village.
``Everything is under threat. Our homes are threatened by
storms and melting permafrost, our livelihoods are threatened
by changes to the plants and animals we harvest. Even our
lives are threatened, as traditional travel routes become
dangerous.''--Alaska Chickaloon Village Chief Gary Harrison
of the Arctic Athabaskan Council
A recent study in Los Angeles found that if we don't act
now to slow global warming, L.A. residents will face
significant heat-related mortality increases. Under a high
emissions scenario, heat-related mortality rates could
increase sixteen-fold for Blacks, fourteen-fold for Asians,
twelve-fold for Hispanics, and eight-fold for Whites, by
2090.
Climate change will likely raise food and energy prices,
which already represent a large proportion of a low-income
family's budget. Integrated Assessment models indicate that
the annual cost of gradual climate change with no adaptation
may be as high as 1.0 to 1.5 percent of GDP (roughly $80 to
$120 billion per year). People of color and the poor may be
disproportionately impacted by these changes, due to the
higher fraction of incomes spent on food and energy.
``We are long past the point where global warming is
considered a myth. We are seeing its effects all around us--
especially in my hometown of New Orleans, Louisiana, which is
expected to experience an increased incidence of flooding
that could potentially destabilize its economy and endangers
its populace. We must be realistic about longterm solutions
to global warming.''--Rep. William Jefferson, (D-LA)
``African Americans and other vulnerable populations live
disproportionately in areas that are exposed to toxic waste,
air pollution and other environmental hazards. Now we learn,
through this report, that global warming will expose these
communities to further environmental hazards that will
continue to have a devastating impact on their health and
economic conditions. We must involve all of the various
stakeholders and continue to use forward-thinking,
comprehensive principals when developing transportation,
energy and environmental policies because of their enormous
effect on vulnerable populations.''--Rep. James E. Clyburn,
(D-TX)
Taking action to slow global warming protects low-income,
people of color, and Indigenous communities, and is good for
all Americans by boosting job growth, saving money for
consumers, and strengthening national security.
Studies have found that the benefits of reducing carbon
emissions, such as lower air pollution, new jobs, and reduced
oil imports, would prove helpful to all Americans. The best
policies for the health of people of color and the poor
involve a substantial decrease in emissions of carbon dioxide
and associated pollutants, and encourage international
cooperation in mitigating climate change.
Policies to reduce global warming can boost job growth,
save money for consumers, and strengthen national security
(Hoerner and Barrett). How America benefits:
1.4 million additional new jobs created;
Average household saving on energy bills of $1,275 per
year; and
Reduced dependence on foreign oil, strengthening national
and economic security for all Americans.
``It is a travesty that we live in a country where African
Americans expend more of their income on energy costs yet are
the most negatively impacted by energy byproducts such as
carbon emissions. In the current scenario, African Americans
are paying a premium for poor health resulting from air
pollution and climate change. We must mobilize and energize
our policymakers to enact legislation that will mitigate the
unjust effects of global warming.''--Rev. Jesse L. Jackson,
Sr., Rainbow Push Coalition
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
[[Page S1268]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am honored to rise with my friend and
colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, to introduce the Climate
Stewardship Act. It is an urgent matter. I was thinking of one clause
that I could remove from Senator McCain's comments. He said: Suppose
Senator Lieberman and I are deluded.
It struck me that probably many times in the battles that we have
fought together or individually, people have thought we were deluded.
If I was going to be deluded, I would rather be deluded in the company
of John McCain than anybody else I can think of. But let me say this:
We are not deluded in our battle to get the U.S. Government to assume a
leadership role in stopping this planet of ours from warming, with
disastrous consequences for the way we and certainly our children and
grandchildren will be forced to live if we do not do something.
When Senator McCain and I first started to work with people in the
field, the scientists, the businesspeople, the environmentalists, we
had a pretty clear picture of what was coming, but very often we had to
rely on scientific models and assume their accuracy in terms of the
worst consequences. That is over.
As Senator McCain's charts and pictures show, we can see with our
eyes the effects of global warming already. The planet is warming. The
polar ice caps are melting. One can see that with their own eyes. The
sea level is rising in coastal areas already, and in other areas the
water is diminishing, declining, as in the great State of my cosponsor,
Arizona, and the State of the distinguished occupant of the Chair,
Nevada. Forest fires are increasing. The evidence is clear that the
problem is here, and that is why we have to do something about it.
Doing nothing is no longer an option. We have reached a point where
the intractable must yield to the inevitable. The evidence that climate
change is real and dangerous keeps pouring in and piling up. What this
legislation is all about is pushing, cajoling, and convincing the
politics to catch up with the science.
I will give real market-based evidence to back up what Senator McCain
and I are saying about how compelling the science is. The leading
insurance companies in the world--we are not talking about
environmentalists--are now predicting that climate-driven disasters
will cost global financial centers an additional $150 billion a year
within the next 10 years. That is $150 billion of additional costs for
the world as a result of climate-driven disasters.
Just a couple of weeks ago, at an international conference, the head
of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr. R.
K. Pachauri, said that we are already at ``a dangerous point'' when it
comes to global warming, and ``immediate and very deep cuts in
greenhouse gases are needed if humanity is to survive.'' Let me repeat
those last words: ``If humanity is to survive.''
It should be noted that Dr. Pachauri is no wild-eyed environmental
radical. In fact, the administration lobbied heavily for Dr. Pachauri's
appointment to the IPCC leadership because it considered him a more
cautious and pragmatic scientist than the other leading candidate.
To call global warming simply an environmental challenge is almost to
diminish it or demean it with a kind of simplicity that puts it
alongside a host of other environmental challenges that we face. Global
warming is both a moral and an economic security challenge, as well as
an environmental challenge.
I start with what I mean by calling it a moral challenge. Greenhouse
gases stay in the atmosphere for about 100 years, so failure to take
the prudent actions that our bill calls for--market-based, moderate,
with caps--will force children still unborn to take far more drastic
action to save their world as they know it and want to live in it.
There is just no excuse for this.
We know it is real. I cited the melting glaciers, the coastal
communities damage, the increased rate of forest fires. Previously, on
this floor I have talked about the fact that a robin appeared in the
north of Alaska and Canada among the Inuits native tribe, and they had
no word in their 10,000-year-old civilization and vocabulary for robin.
Robins now linger longer into the winter in Connecticut, my State.
Why? Because it is getting warmer.
Polar bears may soon be listed as an endangered species. Let me put
it another way. We know that a petition will be filed soon to ask that
polar bears be listed as an endangered species. Why? Because global
warming is removing their habitat. It is wreaking havoc in the arctic
climates where they live and grow. So to spoil the Earth for
generations to come when we knew what we were doing and could have
stopped it would be a moral failing of enormous and, I might add,
Biblical proportions.
This time, it would be mankind that condemned itself, if I may put it
again this way, to no longer living in the garden.
The challenge of solving global warming also presents our Nation with
untold opportunities to reshape our world and assert our moral,
economic, and environmental leadership. There is always opportunity in
change. The world will transition to a world with limited greenhouse
gas emissions, and the United States needs a program like the one we
offer today to seize the new markets, as well as the environmental
challenge.
In particular, Senator McCain and I are seeking now to develop
additional provisions to this legislation that will provide American
innovators and businesspeople with the technological incentives they
need to make our bill work for them.
Looking at the recommendations of the International Climate Change
Task Force, the National Commission on Energy Policy, and the Pew
Center Workshop on Technologies and Policies for a Low Carbon Future,
there are a number of consensus provisions that could help the U.S.
transition to these technologies of the future.
These technologies are here. A recent paper in Science magazine
showed that the scientific, technological, and industrial know-how
already exists to limit carbon dioxide emissions substantially in the
next 50 years. So we do not have to invent them. We just need the
incentives and the motivation for industry, innovators, and individuals
to deploy this knowledge and start us on the path toward a healthier,
more sustainable future.
That is what the Climate Stewardship Act that Senator McCain and I
are introducing today will do. It will provide the incentives. It will
create a cap and let the market do the rest of the work, a real
opportunity for change.
I am very pleased that one study being released today by the NRDC
applying a method of evaluating which is advocated by the Energy
Information Administration of our own Government says the Climate
Stewardship Act will add 800,000 jobs to our economy by the year 2025.
So it will not cost jobs, it will add them.
Over the last few years, we have seen our colleagues grappling with
the challenge of global warming. So many of them seem to be of the same
mind, feeling that something needs to be done but still unsure what
should be done and how. Senator McCain and I want our legislation to
work for them so they can come forward and join us in this effort. This
is an opportunity to invest in our future to face this challenge, an
opportunity to enhance our energy security, and therefore our national
security, by placing a price on greenhouse gas emissions, which is what
our legislation will do.
Our Nation's best energy options will become more cost competitive
with foreign oil. It will make economic sense for dramatic growth in
clean coal, alternative energy, and energy efficiency. It will be an
opportunity for economic development in rural communities. By placing a
price on carbon, it will create new value for range lands, farms, and
forests by compensating landowners for the carbon they can store. It is
an opportunity to innovate clean energy technologies for a growing
global market. By placing this price that the cap and market will do on
greenhouse gases, we will push demand for clean technologies, promoting
innovation through both public and private enterprise and making that
innovation profitable. It is an opportunity for our country to control
the development of our own carbon market that will inevitably become
part of a
[[Page S1269]]
global market someday soon. It is an opportunity, as Senator McCain
said, to improve our relations with our allies and the rest of the
world and gain a stronger voice and ability to bring in developing
nations.
Without a price for carbon, these opportunities disappear. Our bill
provides that price for carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions. We
know it is not the entire answer. A lot of people think it is too
moderate and holds greenhouse gas emissions at today's levels.
By the end of the decade, it is less demanding than the Kyoto
Protocol, which goes into effect as a result of Russia's ratification
next week, but it is a cap that major utilities have told us they could
meet. It may not be strong enough to reduce U.S. emissions as much as
some would like, but it will be strong enough to start turning America
around in the direction of dealing with global warming, reasserting our
world environmental leadership, and moving our economy in the right
direction. We cannot afford to be as shortsighted as we have been up
until now. We cannot afford anymore to allow the special interests, who
will also resist change because change is unnerving and sometimes more
costly, to prevail.
We have to assert the public interest of ourselves and all those who
will follow us on this Earth and in this great country to do something
about global warming while we still can, before its consequences are
disastrous. This is an enormous political challenge.
I go back to where I began. When we started, we had just models, so
we were trying to portray what might happen over the horizon and ask
our colleagues to join us in doing something now. It is not easy to do
that because the crisis always seems further away than the immediacy of
the changes a solution requires, but now we can see it. Shame on us if
we do not do something about it.
I begin this battle today with Senator McCain and other cosponsors
with not only a sense of commitment but a sense of encouragement and
optimism that people ultimately are too reasonable and responsible to
ignore the facts and do nothing about this looming disaster for
humankind.
Senator McCain and I begin this battle again, and we are not going to
stop until it is won.
I ask unanimous consent that several articles on climate be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Brookings Institution, Jan. 28, 2005.]
Michael Crichton and Global Warming
(By David B. Sandalow)
How do people learn about global warming?
That--more than the merits of any scientific argument--is
the most interesting question posed by Michael Crichton's
State of Fear.
The plot of Crichton's 14th novel is notable mainly for its
nuttiness--an MIT professor fights a well-funded network of
eco-terrorists trying to kill thousands by creating
spectacular ``natural'' disasters. But Crichton uses his book
as a vehicle for making two substantive arguments. In light
of Crichton's high profile and ability to command media
attention, these arguments deserve scrutiny.
First, Crichton argues, the scientific evidence for global
warming is weak. Crichton rejects many of the conclusions
reached by the National Academy of Sciences and
Intergovernmental Panel Change--for example, he does not
believe that global temperature increases in recent decades
are most likely the result of human activities. In
challenging the scientific consensus, Crichton rehashes
points familiar to those who follow such issues. These points
are unpersuasive, as explained below.
Second, Crichton argues that concern about global warming
is best understood as a fad. In particular, he argues that
many people concerned about global warming follow a herd
mentality, failing critically to examine the data. Crichton
is especially harsh in his portrayal of other members of the
Hollywood elite, though his critique extends more broadly to
the news media, intelligentsia and general public. This
argument is more interesting and provocative, though
ultimately unpersuasive as well.
1. Climate Science
Crichton makes several attempts to cast doubt on scientific
evidence regarding global warming. First, he highlights the
``urban heat island effect.'' Crichton explains that cities
are often warmer than the surrounding countryside and implies
that observed temperature increases during the past century
are the result of urban growth, not rising greenhouse gas
concentrations.
This issue has been examined extensively in the peer-
reviewed scientific literature and dismissed by the vast
majority of earth scientists as an inadequate explanation of
observed temperature rise. Ocean temperatures have climbed
steadily during the past century, for example--yet this data
is not affected by ``urban heat islands.'' Most land glaciers
around the world are melting, far away from urban centers.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, using only
peer-reviewed data, concluded that urban heat islands caused
``at most'' 0.05 deg.C of the increase in global average
temperatures during the period 1900-1990--roughtly one-tenth
of the increase during this period. In contrast, as one
source reports, ``there are no known scientific peer-reviewed
papers'' to support the view that ``the heat island effect
accounts for much or nearly all warming recorded by land-
based thermometers.''
Second, Crichton argues that global temperatures declines
from 1940-1970 disprove, or at least cast doubt on,
scientific conclusions with respect to global warming. Since
concentrations of greenhouse gases were rising during this
period, says Crichton, the fact that global temperatures were
falling calls into question the link between greenhouse gas
concentrations and temperatures.
Crichton is correct that average temperatures declined, at
least in the Northern Hemisphere, from 1940-1970. Temperature
is the result of many factors, including the warming effects
of greenhouse gases, the cooling effects of volcanic
eruptions, changes in solar radiation and more. (Think of a
game of tug-of-war, in which the number of players on each
team changes frequently.) The fall in Northern Hempishere
temperatures from 1940-1970 reflects the relative weight of
cooling factors during that period, not the absence of a
warming effect from man-made greenhouse gases.
Should we at least be encouraged, recalling the decades
from 1940-1970 in the hope that cooling factors will outweigh
greenhouse warming in the decades ahead? Hardly. Greenhouse
gas concentrations are now well outside levels previously
experienced in human history and climbing sharply. Unless we
change course, the relatively minor warming caused by man-
made greenhouse gases in the last century will be dwarfed by
much greater warming from such gases in the next century.
There is no basis for believing that cooling factors such as
those that dominated the temperature record from 1940-1970
will be sufficient to counteract greenhouse warming in the
decades ahead.
Third, Crichton offers graph after graph showing
temperature declines during the past century in places such
as Puenta Arenas (Chile), Greenville (South Carolina), Ann
Arbor (Michigan), Syracuse (New York) and Navacerrada
(Spain). But global warming is an increase in global average
temperatures. Nothing about specific local temperature
declines is inconsistent with the conclusion that the planet
as a whole has warmed during the past century, or that it
will warm more in the next century if greenhouse gas
concentrations continue to climb.
Crichton makes other arguments but a point-by-point
rebuttal is beyond the scope of this paper. (A thoughtful
rebuttal of that kind can be found at www.realclimate.org.)
Climate change science is a complex topic, not easily reduced
to short summaries. But a useful contrast with Crichton's
science-argument-within-an-action-novel is the sober prose of
the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. The opening paragraph
of a 2001 National Academy report responding to a request
from the Bush White House read:
``Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere
as a result of human activities, causing surface air
temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.
Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over
the last several decades are likely mostly due to human
activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part
of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.
Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are
expected to continue through the 21st century. Secondary
effects are suggested by computer model simulations and basic
physical reasoning. These include increases in rainfall rates
and increased susceptibility of semi-arid regions to drought.
The impacts of these changes will be critically dependent on
the magnitude of the warming and the rate with which it
occurs.''
Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions,
National Academies Press (2001).
Time will tell whether this report or Crichton's novel will
have a greater impact on public understanding of global
warming.
2. Climate Fad
This raises the second, more interesting argument in
Crichton's novel. Crichton argues that concern about global
warming has become a fad embraced by media elites,
entertainment moguls, the scientific establishment and
general public. In Crichton's view, many assertions are
accepted as fact without critical analysis by the vast
majority of those who have views on this issue.
On the last point, fair enough. There are indeed fewer
people who have sorted through the minutiae of climate change
science than have opinions on the topic. In this regard,
global warming is like Social Security reform, health care
finance, the military budget and many other complex public
policy issues. As Nelson Polsby and Aaron Wildavsky once
wrote, ``Most people don't think about most issues most of
the time.'' When forming opinions on such matters, we all
apply certain predispositions or instincts
[[Page S1270]]
and rely on others whose judgment or expertise we trust.
Of course this observation applies as well to the economics
of climate change. The perception is widespread in many
circles that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will be
ruinously expensive. How many of those who hold this view
have subjected their opinions to critical analysis? Crichton
never musters outrage on this topic.
Crichton's complaints are particularly striking in light of
the highly successful efforts to provide policymakers and the
public with analytically rigorous, non-political advice on
climate science. Since 1988, the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change has convened thousands of scientists,
economists, engineers and other experts to review and distill
the peer-reviewed literature on the science on global
warming. The IPCC has produced three reports and is now at
work on the fourth. In addition, the National Academy of
Sciences has provided advice to the U.S. government on this
topic, including the report cited above.
Crichton's view that the American media provides a steady
drumbeat of scary news on global warming is especially hard
to fathom. Solid data are scarce, but one 1996 analysis found
that the rock star Madonna was mentioned roughly 80 times
more often than global warming in the Lexis-Nexis database.
Certainly one could watch the evening news for weeks on end
without ever seeing a global warming story.
Furthermore, the print media's ``on the one hand, on the
other hand'' convention tilts many global warming stories
strongly toward Crichton's point of view. As Crichton would
concede, the vast majority of the world's scientists believe
that global warming is happening as a result of human
activities and that the consequences of rising greenhouse gas
emissions could be very serious. Still, many news stories on
global warming include not just this mainstream view but also
the ``contrarian'' views of a very small minority of climate
change skeptics, giving roughly equal weight to each. As a
result, public perceptions of the controversy surrounding
these issues may be greatly exaggerated.
Crichton's most serious charge is that ``open and frank
discussion of the data, and of the issues, is being
suppressed'' in the scientific community. As ``proof,'' he
offers the assertion that many critics of global warming are
retired professors no longer seeking grants. Whether there is
any basis for these assertions is unclear, but if so Crichton
should back up his claims with more than mere assertions in
the appendix to an action novel.
Indeed Crichton should hold himself to a higher standard
with regard to all the arguments in his book. He is plainly a
very bright guy and, famously, a Harvard Medical School
graduate. A millionaire many times over, he doesn't need to
be seeking grants. If he has something serious to say on the
science of climate change, he should say so in a work of
nonfiction and submit his work for peer review. The result
could be instructive--for him and us all.
____
Arctic Temperature Change--Over the Past 100 Years
This note has been prepared in response to questions and
comments that have arisen since the publication of the Arctic
Climate Impact Assessment overview document--``Impacts of a
Warming Arctic''. It is intended to provide clarity regarding
some aspects relative to the material from Chapter 2 Arctic
Climate--Past and Present that will appear in full with the
publication of the ACIA scientific report in 2005 and has now
been posted on the ACIA website.
There are several possible definitions of the Arctic
depending on, for example, tree line, continuous permafrost,
and other factors. It was decided for purposes of this
analysis that the latitude 60 deg. N would be defined as the
southern boundary. Although somewhat arbitrary, this is no
more arbitrary than choosing 62 deg. N, 67 deg. N or any
other latitude. Since the marine data in the Arctic are very
limited in geographical and temporal coverage, it was
decided, for consistency, to only use data from land
stations. The Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN)
database (updated from Peterson and Vose, 1997) and the
Climatic Research Unit (CRU) database (Jones and Moberg,
2003) were selected for this analysis.
The analysis showed that the annual land-surface air
temperature variations in the Arctic (north of 60 deg. N)
from 1900 to 2002 using the GHCN and the CRU datasets led to
virtually identical time series, and both documented a
statistically significant warming trend of 0.09 C/decade
during that period. In view of the high correlation between
the GHCN and CRU datasets, it was decided to focus the
presentation in Chapter 2 on analyses of the GHCN dataset.
It needs to be stressed that the spatial coverage of the
region north of 60 deg. N is quite varied. During the period
(1900-1945), there were few observing stations in the Alaska/
Canadian Arctic/West Greenland sector and more in the North
Atlantic (East Greenland/Iceland/Scandinavia) and Russian
sectors. The coverage for periods since 1945 is more uniform.
Based on the analyses of the GHCN and CRU datasets, the
annual land-surface air temperature from 60-90 deg. N,
smoothed with a 21-point binomial filter giving near decadal
averages, was warmer in the most recent decade (1990s) than
it was in the 1930-1940s period. It should be noted that
other analyses (e.g., Przybylak 2000; Polyakov et al. 2002;
and Lugina et al. 2004) give comparable estimates of Arctic
warming for these two decades that, however, lay wit/hin the
error margins of possible accuracy of the zonal
mean estimates (Vinnikov et al. 1990; Vinnikov et
al.,1987). The major source of this uncertainty is the
data deficiency in the North American sector prior to
1950s in all databases.
Least-squares linear trends in annual anomalies of Arctic
(60 deg. to 90 deg. N) land-surface air temperature from the
GHCN (updated from Peterson and Vose, 1997) and CRU (Jones
and Moberg, 2003) datasets for the period 1966-2003 both gave
warming rates of 0.38 ( deg.C/decade). This is consistent
with the analysis of Polyakov et al. (2002) and confirmed
with satellite observations over the whole Arctic, for the
past 2 decades (Comiso, 2003).
Chapter 3 of the ACIA report, entitled ``The Changing
Arctic: Indigenous Perspectives'' documents the traditional
knowledge of Arctic residents and indicates that substantial
changes have already occurred in the Arctic and supports the
evidence that the most recent decade is different from those
of earlier in the 20th century.
The modeling studies of Johannessen et al. (2004) showed
the importance of anthropogenic forcing over the past half
century for modeling the arctic climate. ``It is suggested
strongly that whereas the earlier warming was natural
internal climate-system variability, the recent SAT (surface
air temperature) changes are a response to anthropogenic
forcing''.
In the context of this report, the authors agreed on the
following terminology. A conclusion termed as ``very
probable'' is to be interpreted that the authors were 90-99%
confident in the conclusion. The term ``probable'' conveys a
66-90% confidence.
The conclusions of Chapter 2 were that: ``Based on the
analysis of the climate of the 20th century, it is very
probable that the Arctic has warmed over the past century,
although the warming has not been uniform. Land stations
north of 60 deg. N indicate that the average surface
temperature increased by approximately 0.09 deg.C/decade
during the past century, which is greater than the 0.06
deg.C/decade increase averaged over the Northern Hemisphere.
It is not possible to be certain of the variation in mean
landstation temperature over the first half of the 20th
century because of a scarcity of observations across the
Arctic before about 1950. However, it is probable that the
past decade was warmer than any other in the period of the
instrumental record.''
Polar amplification refers to the relative rates of warming
in the Arctic versus other latitude bands. The conclusions of
Chapter 2 were that: ``Evidence of polar amplification
depends on the timescale of examination. Over the past 100
years, it is possible that there has been polar
amplification, however, over the past 50 years it is probable
that polar amplification has occurred.''
References
Comiso, J., 2003. Warming trends in the Arctic from clear
sky satellite observations. J. Climate, 16:3498-3510.
Johannessen, O.M., L. Bengtsson, M.W. Miles, S.I. Kuzmina,
V.A Semenov, G.V. Alekseev, A.P. Nagurnyi, V.F. Zakharov,
L.P. Bobylev, L.H. Pettersson, K. Hasselmann and H.P. Cattle,
2004. Arctic climate change: observed and modelled
temperature and sea-ice variability. Tellus A, 56:328-341.
Jones, P.D. and A. Moberg, 2003. Hemispheric and large-
scale surface air temperature variations: an extensive
revision and an update to 2001. J. Climate, 16:206-223.
Lugina, K.M., P.Ya. Groisman, K.Ya. Vinnikov, V.V.
Koknaeva, and N.A Speranskaya, 2004. Monthly surface air
temperature time series area-averaged over the 30-degree
latitudinal belts of the globe, 1881-2003. In Trends Online:
A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide
Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, U.S.A.
Peterson, T.C. and R.S. Vose, 1997. An overview of the
Global Historical Climatology Network temperature database.
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 78:2837-
2849.
Peterson, T.C., K.P. Gallo, J. Livermore, T.W. Owen, A.
Huang and D.A. McKittrick, 1999. Global rural temperature
trends. Geophysical Research Letters, 26:329-332.
Polyakov, I.V., G.V. Alekseev, R.V. Bekryaev, U. Bhatt,
R.L. Colony, M.A. Johnson, V.P. Karklin, A.P. Makshtas, D.
Walsh and A.V. Yulin, 2002. Observationally based assessment
of polar amplification of global warming. Geophysical
Research Letters, 29(18):1878.
Przybylak, R., 2000: Temporal and spatial variation of
surface air temperature over the period of instrumental
observations in the Arctic. Int. J. Climatol., 20, 587-614.
Serreze, M.C., J.E. Walsh, F.S. Chapin III, T. Osterkamp,
M. Dyurgerov, V. Romanovsky, W.C. Oechel, J. Morison, T.
Zhang and R.G. Barry, 2000. Observational evidence of recent
change in the northern high latitude environment. Climatic
Change, 46: 159-207.
Vinnikov, K.Ya., P.Ya. Groisman, K.M. Lugina, and A.A.
Golubev. 1987. Mean air temperature variations of the
Northern Hemisphere for 1841-1985. Soviet Meteorology and
Hydrology 1:37-45.
Vinnikov, K.Ya., P.Ya. Groisman, and K.M. Lugina. 1990.
Empirical data on contemporary global climate changes
(temperature and precipitation). Journal of Climate 3:662-77.
[[Page S1271]]
____
Distort Reform
A review of the distorted science in Michael Crichton's State of Fear
(By Gavin Schmidt)
Michael Crichton's new novel State of Fear is about global-
warming hysteria ginned up by a self-important NGO on behalf
of evil eco-terrorists . . . or by evil eco-terrorists on
behalf of a self-important NGO. It's not quite clear.
Regardless, the message of the book is that global warming is
a non-problem. A lesson for our times? Sadly, no.
In between car chases, shoot-outs, cannibalistic rites, and
other assorted derring-doo-doo, the novel addresses
scientific issues, but is selective (and occasionally
mistaken) about the basic science involved. Some of the
issues Crichton raises are real and already well-appreciated,
while others are red herrings used to confuse rather than
enlighten.
The fictional champion of Crichton's climate skepticism is
John Kenner, an MIT academic-turned-undercover operative who
runs intellectual rings around two other characters--the
actor (a rather dim-witted chap) and the lawyer (a duped
innocent), neither of whom know much about science.
So, for the benefit of actors and lawyers everywhere, I
will try to help out.
forcings majeure
Early in State of Fear, a skeptical character points out
that while carbon dioxide was rising between 1940 and 1970,
the globe was cooling. What, then, makes us so certain rising
CO2 is behind recent warming?
Good question. Northern-hemisphere mean temperatures do
appear to have fallen over that 30-year period, despite a
rise in CO2, which if all else had been equal
should have led to warming. But were all things equal?
Actually, no.
In the real world, climate is affected both by internal
variability (natural internal processes within the climate
system) and forcings (external forces, either natural or
human-induced, acting on the climate system). Some forcings--
sulfate and nitrate aerosols, land-use changes, solar
irradiance, and volcanic aerosols, for instance--can cause
cooling.
Matching up what really happened with what we might have
expected to happen requires taking into consideration all the
forcings, as best as we can. Even then, any discrepancy might
be due to internal variability (related principally to the
ocean on multi-decadal time scales). Our current ``best
guess'' is that the global mean changes in temperature,
including the 1940-1970 cooling, are quite closely related to
the forcings. Regional patterns of change appear to be linked
more closely to internal variability, particularly during the
1930s.
No model that does not include a sharp rise in greenhouse
gases (GHGs), principally CO2, is able to match up
with recent warming. Thus the conclusion that GHGs are
driving warming.
The book also shows, through the selective use of weather-
station data, a number of single-station records with long-
term cooling trends. In particular, characters visit Punta
Arenas, at the tip of South America, where the station record
posted on the wall shows a long-term cooling trend (though
slight warming since the 1970s). ``There's your global
warming,'' one of Crichton's good guys declares dismissively.
Well, not exactly. Global warming is defined by the global
mean surface temperature. No one has or would claim that the
whole globe is warming uniformly. Had the characters visited
the nearby station of Santa Cruz Aeropuerto, the poster on
the wall would have shown a positive trend. Would that have
been proof of global warning? No. Only by amalgamating all
available records can we have an idea what the regional,
hemispheric, or global means are doing. That's way they call
it global warming.
Tall, Dark, and Hansen
Even more troubling is some misleading commentary regarding
climate-science pioneer (and my boss) James Hansen's
testimony to Congress in 1988. ``Dr. Hansen overestimated
[global warming] by 300 percent,'' says our hero Kenner.
Hansen's testimony did indeed spread awareness of global
warming, but not because he exaggerated the problem by 300
percent. In a paper published soon after that testimony,
Hansen and colleagues presented three model simulations, each
following a different scenario for the growth in
CO2 and other trace gases and forcings. Scenario A
had exponentially increasing CO2, scenario B had a
more modest business-as-usual assumption, and scenario C had
no further increase in CO2 after the year 2000.
Both B and C assumed a large volcanic eruption in 1995.
Rightly, the authors did not assume they knew what path
CO2 emissions would take, and presented a spectrum
of possibilities. The scenario that turned out to be closest
to the real path of forcings growth was scenario B, with the
difference that Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, not 1995. The
temperature change for the '90s predicted under this scenario
was very close to the actual 0.11 degree-Celsius change
observed.
So, given a good estimate of the forcings, the model did a
reasonable job. In fact, in his congressional testimony
Hansen only showed results from scenario B, and stated
clearly that it was the most probable scenario.
The claim of a ``300 percent'' error comes from noted
climate skeptic Patrick Michaels, who in testimony before
Congress in 1998 deleted scenarios B and C from the chart he
used in order to give the impression that the models were
unreliable. Thus a significant success for climate modeling
was presented as a complete failure--a willful distortion
that Crichton adopts uncritically.
The well-known and exhaustively studied ``urban heat island
effect''--the tendency for cities to be warmer than the
surrounding countryside due to the built-up surroundings and
intensive energy use--is also raised several times in the
book. Most recently, a study by David Parker published last
year in the journal Nature found no residual effect in the
surface temperature record once corrections were made for
this undisputed phenomenon. Though Crichton makes much of it,
there's no there there.
Authorial Inattention
At the end of the book, Crichton offers a somber author's
note. In it, he reiterates the main points of his thesis:
that there are some who push claims beyond what is
scientifically supported in order to drum up support (and I
have some sympathy with this), and that because we don't know
everything, we actually know nothing (here, I beg to differ).
He gives us his back-of-a-napkin estimate for the global
warming that will occur over the next century--an increase of
approximately 0.8 degrees Celsius--and claims that his guess
is as good as any model's. He suggests that most of the
warming will be due to land-use changes--extremely unlikely,
as globally speaking, land-use change has a cooling effect.
As his faulty assumptions painfully demonstrate, simulations
based on physics are better than just guessing.
Finally, in an appendix, Crichton uses a rather curious
train of logic to compare global warming to the 19th century
eugenics movement. Eugenics, he notes, was studied in
prestigious universities and supported by charitable
foundations. Today, global warming is studied in prestigious
universities and supported by charitable foundations. Aha!
Presumably Crichton doesn't actually believe that
foundation-supported academic research is ipso facto
misguided, even evil, but that is certainly the impression
left by this peculiar linkage.
In summary, I am disappointed, not least because while
researching his book, Crichton visited our lab at the NASA
Goddard Institute and discussed some of these issues with me
and a few of my colleagues. I suppose we didn't do a very
good job of explaining matters. Judging from his
bibliography, the rather dry prose of reports by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change did not stir his
senses quite like some of the racier contrarian texts.
Unsurprisingly, perhaps, Crichton picked fiction over fact.
Scientifically curious readers can find a more detailed
version of this review on RealClimate.org.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be
added as cosponsors: Senators Feinstein, Snowe, Durbin, Chafee,
Lautenberg, Murray, Nelson, Corzine, Dayton, Cantwell, and Kerry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend, Senator Lieberman,
again, and I would like to quote again from Prime Minister Blair, who
announced that action on global warming will be his first priority as
Chair of the G-8. He has taken a leadership role, choosing to take
action and not to hide behind the uncertainties that the science
community will soon resolve.
The Prime Minister made it clear in a recent speech at the World
Economic Forum in Davos as to his intentions when he said:
. . . if America wants the rest of the world to be part of
the agenda it has set, it must be part of their agenda too. .
. .
It is past time for our country to show leadership in addressing the
world's greatest environmental challenge, climate change.
______
By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Smith):
S. 343. A bill to provide for qualified withdrawals from the Capital
Construction Fund for fishermen leaving the industry and for the
rollover of Capital Construction Funds to individual retirement plans,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Capital
Construction Fund Qualified Withdrawal Act of 2005. My friend and
colleague, Senator Smith, joins me in introducing this important bill.
In January of 2000, a fishery disaster was declared by the Secretary
of Commerce for the West Coast groundfish fishery. Due to major
declines in fish population, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council
decreased groundfish catch quotas by 90 percent. Today, the groundfish
fishery in Oregon and adjoining States in the Pacific Northwest
[[Page S1272]]
continues to face daunting challenges as a result of this disaster.
Fishery income has dropped 55 percent and over a thousand fishers face
bankruptcy. This legislation helps by reforming the Capital
Construction Fund in a way that will ease the transition by
groundfishers and other fishers in economic peril away from fishing.
The Capital Construction Fund, CCF, Merchant Marine Act of 1936,
amended 1969, 46 U.S.C. 1177, has been a way for fishers to accumulate
funds, free from taxes, solely for the purpose of buying or refitting
fishing vessels. It was conceived at a time when the Federal Government
wanted to help capitalize and expand American fishing fleets. The
program was a success: it led to a larger U.S. fishing fleet. However,
fish populations declined and the U.S. commercial fishing fleet is now
over-capitalized. The CCF's restrictions have not kept up with the
times, and now it exacerbates some problems facing U.S. fisheries.
Now is the time to help those fishers who wish to do so to leave the
fleet.
In Oregon, the amounts in CCF accounts range from $10,000 to over
$200,000. This legislation changes current law to allow fishers to
remove money from their CCF for purposes other than buying new vessels
or upgrading current vessels, without losing up to 70 percent of their
CCF funds in taxes and penalties. This legislation changes the CCF so
fishers who want to opt out of fishing are not penalized for doing so.
This bill takes a significant step towards making the commercial
fishing industry sustainable by amending the CCF to allow non-fishing
uses of investments. This bill amends the Merchant Marine Act of 1936
and the Internal Revenue Code to allow funds currently in the CCF to be
rolled over into an IRA or other type of retirement account, or to be
used for the payment of an industry fee authorized by the fishery
capacity reduction program, without adverse tax consequences to the
account holders. This bill will also encourage innovation and
conservation by allowing fishers to use funds deposited in a CCF to
develop or purchase new gear that reduces bycatch.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this
legislation.
______
By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 345. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
deliver a meaningful benefit and lower prescription drug prices under
the medicare program; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would speak for a moment, if I could, on
an issue which is near and dear to not just seniors but their families.
Last night, CMS Administrator Mark McClellan acknowledged the
cumulative cost of the Medicare prescription drug program between 2006
and 2015 will reach $1.2 trillion. Although Mr. McClellan said the
number would be reduced to $724 billion after seniors pay their
premiums and the Federal Government is reimbursed by States for
coverage of their Medicaid populations, it is still much higher than
originally thought. As recently as September, Mr. McClellan said this
program would only cost $534 billion.
Remember this program? This was President Bush's Medicare
prescription drug program.
Now, we all understand that Medicare did not cover prescription
drugs. Seniors need that coverage because drugs are so expensive, and
drugs are essential for them to maintain their health and stay
independent and strong for a long period of time. But when we got into
this debate on the floor of the Senate about creating this program, the
pharmaceutical companies lined the hallways around the Senate with men
in expensive three-piece suits and Gucci loafers and said: Whatever you
do, don't touch the profits of the pharmaceutical companies.
Too many Senators on both sides of the aisle decided that the profits
of the pharmaceutical companies were more important than the cost of
the drugs for seniors. So, in the bill we included a provision that
prohibits Medicare from negotiating with the pharmaceutical companies
to get lower prices for drugs for seniors.
What does it mean? It means every single year the cost of
prescription drugs under this Medicare program will inflate like the
cost of prescription drugs for people across the United States.
Take a look at the drug price comparisons, just for the years 2005
and 2016, on some common drugs listed on this chart--what we
anticipate, using the Bush Administration's calculations for the rate
of increase for prescription drugs, will happen to their costs.
Look at Norvasc. It will go from $170 to $525 in 2016; Plavix, $230
to $710; Prevacid, $120 to $374; and Zocor, $124 to $383.
So in this period of time, if you want to know why the prescription
drug program's costs are going through the roof, it is because the cost
of the drugs is going through the roof. Unless and until Medicare can
negotiate the price of these drugs, and keep them reasonable for
seniors, there is no way in the world this program is going to be cost-
effective. It is interesting to me that when this estimate of cost came
out, Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the Republican chairman of
the Budget Committee, said $400 billion was the original cost of this
program, and we have to cut the benefits back to hit that cost, instead
of saying, why don't we find a way to reduce the pharmaceutical company
profits so we can keep the drugs seniors across America are buying at
reasonable prices.
Drug prices are going to continue to rise. The price of 26 drugs most
commonly used by seniors increased 21.6 percent, on average, over the
last 3 years, and they will continue to increase in the future.
I have gone through some basic drugs on this chart, but I want to
tell my friends who are following this debate, this is no surprise.
Those of us who voted against the bill said exactly this would happen:
If you do not contain the cost of drugs, you cannot afford this
program. It will explode in the outyears, and future Members of
Congress and Presidents will decide to cut back on the benefits under
the program rather than face the reality of what we did in passing this
legislation.
Medicare actuaries estimate the prescription drug benefit premium
will increase from $35 a month under the President's plan in 2006 to
$68 a month in 2015. Deductibles will increase. I think we are at a
point where we have to acknowledge the obvious.
Let me say a word about pharmaceutical companies. We want the
pharmaceutical industry to be strong and profitable because in their
profits is the money for research for new drugs. That is essential for
America's health and the world's health. But what we find now is that
pharmaceutical companies in America are spending more money on
advertising than they are on research. You cannot turn on the
television without finding another ad for another drug. Why? Because
they want the consuming public to walk into their doctor's office and
say: Doctor, I beg you, give me the little purple pill. And doctors do.
It is an expensive pill. It may not be the necessary and required pill,
but doctors do it. And if you sell more of those little purple pills,
the pharmaceutical companies do quite well.
Take a look at the profitability of the Fortune 500 drug companies
versus the profits of all Fortune 500 companies in the year 2002. When
you take a look at the drug companies on these red bars, and the other
companies on the yellow bars, you can see exactly the difference.
Profits as revenues: 17 percent for drug companies, 3.1 percent for
other companies. Profits as a percentage of equity: 27.6 percent for
pharmaceutical companies, 10.2 percent for the rest of the Fortune 500
companies.
They are extremely profitable companies. We want them to make
profits, but not at the expense of seniors who cannot afford to pay.
Mr. President, I want to give my colleague an opportunity to speak
here. I would say the most important thing I can tell you today is
there is an answer. I am reintroducing a bill today that I believe will
go a long way to reducing the cost of prescription drugs. The Medicare
Prescription Drugs Savings and Choice Act instructs the Secretary of
HHS to offer a nationwide Medicare-delivered prescription drug benefit
in addition to the current PDP and PPO plans available in the 10
regions. It instructs the Secretary of HHS to set a uniform national
premium of $35 for the first year, and it instructs the Secretary of
HHS to negotiate group purchasing agreements on behalf of Medicare
beneficiaries.
[[Page S1273]]
This is the way to lower the costs of drugs. I am honored that my
proposal, the legislation which I am introducing, has been endorsed by
the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, the Alliance for Retired Americans, the American
Federation of Teachers, the American Public Health Association, the
American Nurses Association, Campaign for America's Future, Center for
Medicare Advocacy, Consumers Union, Families USA, and a host of other
groups. It is an indication to me that they know, for their membership
and seniors and Americans in general, this legislation is going to be
an important step forward.
I invite my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this legislation so
we can bring the cost of drugs within the reach of senior citizens and
keep a prescription drug program that is affordable.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I commend my colleague for his leadership
on this issue. As I travel around my State, as he does his, too, the
No. 1 issue I hear about from people is the cost of health care today.
We had an opportunity when we passed the Medicare prescription drug
bill to deal with that issue. We did not. He has introduced legislation
today that will focus on that incredibly important issue for our
country. I thank him for his leadership.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 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. 345
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 ``Medicare Prescription Drug
Savings and Choice Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF MEDICARE OPERATED PRESCRIPTION DRUG
PLAN OPTION.
(a) In General.--Subpart 2 of part D of the Social Security
Act is amended by inserting after section 1860D-11 the
following new section:
``MEDICARE OPERATED PRESCRIPTION DRUG PLAN OPTION
``Sec. 1860D-11A. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of this part, for each year (beginning with
2006), in addition to any plans offered under section 1860D-
11, the Secretary shall offer one or more medicare operated
prescription drug plans (as defined in subsection (c)) with a
service area that consists of the entire United States and
shall enter into negotiations with pharmaceutical
manufacturers to reduce the purchase cost of covered part D
drugs for eligible part D individuals in accordance with
subsection (b).
``(b) Negotiations.--Notwithstanding section 1860D-11(i),
for purposes of offering a medicare operated prescription
drug plan under this section, the Secretary shall negotiate
with pharmaceutical manufacturers with respect to the
purchase price of covered part D drugs and shall encourage
the use of more affordable therapeutic equivalents to the
extent such practices do not override medical necessity as
determined by the prescribing physician. To the extent
practicable and consistent with the previous sentence, the
Secretary shall implement strategies similar to those used by
other Federal purchasers of prescription drugs, and other
strategies, to reduce the purchase cost of covered part D
drugs.
``(c) Medicare Operated Prescription Drug Plan Defined.--
For purposes of this part, the term `medicare operated
prescription drug plan' means a prescription drug plan that
offers qualified prescription drug coverage and access to
negotiated prices described in section 1860D-2(a)(1)(A). Such
a plan may offer supplemental prescription drug coverage in
the same manner as other qualified prescription drug coverage
offered by other prescription drug plans.
``(d) Monthly Beneficiary Premium.--
``(1) Qualified prescription drug coverage.--The monthly
beneficiary premium for qualified prescription drug coverage
and access to negotiated prices described in section 1860D-
2(a)(1)(A) to be charged under a medicare operated
prescription drug plan shall be uniform nationally. Such
premium for months in 2006 shall be $35 and for months in
succeeding years shall be based on the average monthly per
capita actuarial cost of offering the medicare operated
prescription drug plan for the year involved, including
administrative expenses.
``(2) Supplemental prescription drug coverage.--Insofar as
a medicare operated prescription drug plan offers
supplemental prescription drug coverage, the Secretary may
adjust the amount of the premium charged under paragraph (1).
``(3) Requirement for at least one plan with a $35 premium
in 2006.--The Secretary shall ensure that at least one
medicare operated prescription drug plan offered in 2006 has
a monthly premium of $35.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 1860D-3(a) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395w-103(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(4) Availability of the medicare operated prescription
drug plan.--
``(A) In general.--A medicare operated prescription drug
plan (as defined in section 1860D-11A(c)) shall be offered
nationally in accordance with section 1860D-11A.
``(B) Relationship to other plans.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), a medicare
operated prescription drug plan shall be offered in addition
to any qualifying plan or fallback prescription drug plan
offered in a PDP region and shall not be considered to be
such a plan for purposes of meeting the requirements of this
subsection.
``(ii) Designation as a fallback plan.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of this part, the Secretary may designate the
medicare operated prescription drug plan as the fallback
prescription drug plan for any fallback service area (as
defined in section 1860D-11(g)(3)) determined to be
appropriate by the Secretary.''.
(2) Section 1860D-13(c)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
113(c)(3)) is amended--
(A) in the heading, by inserting ``and medicare operated
prescription drug plans'' after ``Fallback plans''; and
(B) by inserting ``or a medicare operated prescription drug
plan'' after ``a fallback prescription drug plan''.
(3) Section 1860D-16(b)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
116(b)(1)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(E) payments for expenses incurred with respect to the
operation of medicare operated prescription drug plans under
section 1860D-11A.''.
(4) Section 1860D-41(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 141(a)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(19) Medicare operated prescription drug plan.--The term
`medicare operated prescription drug plan' has the meaning
given such term in section 1860D-11A(c).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section
101 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and
Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173; 117 Stat.
2071).
______
By Ms. STABENOW:
S. 346. A bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to prohibit the
importation of Canadian municipal solid waste without State consent; to
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Canadian
Waste Import Ban Act of 2005, to address the rapidly growing problem of
Canadian waste shipments to Michigan. Michigan has been known for its
beautiful waters, lush forests, and now unfortunately as a top importer
of international trash.
My colleagues may be surprised to learn that the biggest source of
waste to Michigan is not from another State, but from our neighbor to
the north, Canada. The rapid increase in waste shipments is stunning.
In 2003, 180 trash trucks crossed the Ambassador and Blue Water bridges
into Michigan. Today, that number has more than doubled to 415 trucks
per day. You can see these trucks lined up for miles waiting to cross
into Michigan, polluting the air and creating traffic congestions. The
city of Toronto alone sends over 1 million tons of trash annually to
Michigan.
This waste dramatically decreases Michigan's own landfill capacity,
and has an incredible negative impact on Michigan's environment and the
public health of its citizens. The waste also poses a tremendous
homeland security threat, as trucks loaded with garbage are harder for
Customs agents to inspect than traditional cargo.
I fought and was successful in the installation of radiation
equipment at these crossings. As a result of this equipment, the Blue
Water Bridge port director reports that three to four Canadian trash
trucks per week are being turned back at the border for containing
dangerous radioactive materials such as medical waste. But we need the
trash shipments to stop completely.
Michigan already has protections contained in an international
agreement between the United States and Canada, but are being ignored.
Under the Agreement Concerning the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous
Waste, which was entered into in 1986, shipments of waste across the
Canadian-U.S. border require government-to-government notification. The
[[Page S1274]]
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, as the designate authority for
the United States would receive the notification and then would have 30
days to consent or object to the shipment. Not only have these
notification provisions not been enforced, but the EPA has indicated
that they would not object to the municipal waste shipments.
Michigan citizens have spoken loud and clear on this issue. More than
165,000 people signed my on-line petition urging the EPA to use their
power to stop the Canadian trash shipments. Residents from all 83
Michigan counties have signed the petition--an unprecedented response.
I've presented these signatures to both former EPA Administrator Mike
Leavitt and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. But despite these
efforts, EPA has not stopped these trash shipments.
That is why I'm reintroducing my bill today. The Canadian Waste
Import Ban of 2005 would stop the Canadian trash shipments by placing
an immediate Federal ban on the importation of Canadian municipal solid
waste. Any State that wishes to receive Canadian trash can opt out of
the ban by giving notice to the EPA. The ban will be in place until the
EPA enforces the notice and consent provision contained in the
binational agreement.
This legislation would also give Michigan residents the protection
they deserve from these shipments. In enforcing the agreement, the EPA
would have to obtain the consent of the receiving State before
consenting to a Canadian municipal solid waste shipment. So if the
State of Michigan says no, the EPA must object to the trash shipment.
The EPA would also have to consider the impact of the shipment on
homeland security, environment, and public health. These waste
shipments should no longer be accepted without an examination of how it
will affect the health and safety of Michigan families.
Michigan residents deserve the protections provided by this
international agreement and should be provided the ability to stop
these dangerous and unhealthy trash shipments. I urge my colleagues to
support the Canadian Waste Import Ban of 2005.
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. 346
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 ``Canadian Waste Import Ban
Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. CANADIAN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE.
(a) In General.--Subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
(42 U.S.C. 6941 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 4011. CANADIAN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Agreement.--The term `Agreement' means--
``(A) the Agreement Concerning the Transboundary Movement
of Hazardous Waste between the United States and Canada,
signed at Ottawa on October 28, 1986 (TIAS 11099) and amended
on November 25, 1992; and
``(B) any regulations promulgated to implement and enforce
that Agreement.
``(2) Canadian municipal solid waste.--The term `Canadian
municipal solid waste' means municipal solid waste that is
generated in Canada.
``(3) Municipal solid waste.--
``(A) In general.--The term `municipal solid waste' means--
``(i) material discarded for disposal by--
``(I) households (including single and multifamily
residences); and
``(II) public lodgings such as hotels and motels; and
``(ii) material discarded for disposal that was generated
by commercial, institutional, and industrial sources, to the
extent that the material--
``(I)(aa) is essentially the same as material described in
clause (i); or
``(bb) is collected and disposed of with material described
in clause (i) as part of a normal municipal solid waste
collection service; and
``(II) is not subject to regulation under subtitle C.
``(B) Inclusions.--The term `municipal solid waste'
includes--
``(i) appliances;
``(ii) clothing;
``(iii) consumer product packaging;
``(iv) cosmetics;
``(v) debris resulting from construction, remodeling,
repair, or demolition of a structure;
``(vi) disposable diapers;
``(vii) food containers made of glass or metal;
``(viii) food waste;
``(ix) household hazardous waste;
``(x) office supplies;
``(xi) paper; and
``(xii) yard waste.
``(C) Exclusions.--The term `municipal solid waste' does
not include--
``(i) solid waste identified or listed as a hazardous waste
under section 3001, except for household hazardous waste;
``(ii) solid waste, including contaminated soil and debris,
resulting from--
``(I) a response action taken under section 104 or 106 of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9604, 9606);
``(II) a response action taken under a State law with
authorities comparable to the authorities contained in either
of those sections; or
``(III) a corrective action taken under this Act;
``(iii) recyclable material--
``(I) that has been separated, at the source of the
material, from waste destined for disposal; or
``(II) that has been managed separately from waste destined
for disposal, including scrap rubber to be used as a fuel
source;
``(iv) a material or product returned from a dispenser or
distributor to the manufacturer or an agent of the
manufacturer for credit, evaluation, and possible potential
reuse;
``(v) solid waste that is--
``(I) generated by an industrial facility; and
``(II) transported for the purpose of treatment, storage,
or disposal to a facility (which facility is in compliance
with applicable State and local land use and zoning laws and
regulations) or facility unit--
``(aa) that is owned or operated by the generator of the
waste;
``(bb) that is located on property owned by the generator
of the waste or a company with which the generator is
affiliated; or
``(cc) the capacity of which is contractually dedicated
exclusively to a specific generator;
``(vi) medical waste that is segregated from or not mixed
with solid waste;
``(vii) sewage sludge or residuals from a sewage treatment
plant;
``(viii) combustion ash generated by a resource recovery
facility or municipal incinerator; or
``(ix) waste from a manufacturing or processing (including
pollution control) operation that is not essentially the same
as waste normally generated by households.
``(b) Ban on Canadian Municipal Solid Waste.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
until the date on which the Administrator promulgates
regulations to implement and enforce the Agreement (including
notice and consent provisions of the Agreement), no person
may import into any State, and no solid waste management
facility may accept, Canadian municipal solid waste for the
purpose of disposal or incineration of the Canadian municipal
solid waste.
``(2) Election by governor.--The Governor of a State may
elect to opt out of the ban under paragraph (1), and consent
to the importation and acceptance by the State of Canadian
municipal solid waste before the date specified in that
paragraph, if the Governor submits to the Administrator a
notice of that election by the Governor.
``(c) Authority of Administrator.--
``(1) In general.--Beginning immediately after the date of
enactment of this section, the Administrator shall--
``(A) perform the functions of the Designated Authority of
the United States described in the Agreement with respect to
the importation and exportation of municipal solid waste
under the Agreement; and
``(B) implement and enforce the Agreement (including notice
and consent provisions of the Agreement).
``(2) Consent to importation.--In considering whether to
consent to the importation of Canadian municipal solid waste
under article 3(c) of the Agreement, the Administrator
shall--
``(A) obtain the consent of each State into which the
Canadian municipal solid waste is to be imported; and
``(B) consider the impact of the importation on homeland
security, public health, and the environment.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. prec. 6901) is amended by
adding after the item relating to section 4010 the following:
``Sec. 4011. Canadian municipal solid waste''.
______
By Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself, Mr. Lugar, and Mr.
Rockefeller):
S. 347. A bill to amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security
Act and title III of the Public Health Service Act to improve access to
information about individuals' health care operations and legal rights
for care near the end of life, to promote advance care planning and
decisionmaking so that individuals' wishes are known should they become
unable to speak for themselves, to engage health care providers in
disseminating information about and assisting in the preparation of
advance directives, which include living wills and durable powers of
attorney for health care, and for other
[[Page S1275]]
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my
colleagues and cosponsors Senators Jay Rockefeller and Richard Lugar as
we introduce the Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act of
2005. Senators Rockefeller and Collins, along with Senator Wyden,
sponsored legislation with similar goals in the past and have provided
invaluable support and counsel in drafting the bill we introduce today.
The Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act of 2005 has a
simple purpose: to encourage all adults in America, especially those 65
and older, to think about, talk about and write down their wishes for
medical care near the end of life should they become unable to make
decisions for themselves. Advance directives, which include a living
will stating the individual's preferences for care, and a power of
attorney for health care, are critical documents that each of us should
have. The goal is clear, but reaching it requires that we educate the
public about the importance of advance directives, offer opportunities
for discussion of the issues, and reinforce the requirement that health
care providers honor patients' wishes. This bill is designed to do just
that.
Americans are afraid of death. We don't like to think about it, talk
about it, or plan for it. And yet, we will all face it. Not only our
own deaths, but our parents, siblings, friends, and sometimes,
tragically, children. Today, most Americans face death unprepared.
Family members frequently end up making critical medical decisions for
incapacitated patients, yet they, too, are unprepared. Only 15-20
percent of adults have advance directives. Among this group, many have
not discussed the contents of these important documents with their
families or even the person named as the health care proxy.
It is time to bring this discussion into the mainstream. Too much is
at stake to continue to deny our mortality. You all know about the
tragic situation going on in Florida with Terri Schiavo. Here is a
young woman in a persistent vegetative state who is the subject of a
debate about her treatment between her husband and her parents, a
debate that has been a court case and a legislative quagmire. Why?
Because she didn't write down what type of care she would want in the
event an accident, illness or other medical condition caused her to be
in an incapacitated state. She is young and didn't think about death or
dying. If she had an advance directive that made her wishes clear and
named a health care proxy to make decisions for her should she be
unable to do so for herself, the treatment debate might continue, but
there would be no question as to who could decide. The Supreme Court
has clearly affirmed that competent adults have the right to refuse
unwanted medical treatment, Washington v. Glucksburg and Vacco v.
Quill, 1997, but it also stressed that advance directives are a means
of safeguarding that right should adults become incapable of deciding
for themselves.
Fortunately, situations like Ms. Schiavo's are rare. Of the 2.5
million people who die each year 83 percent are Medicare beneficiaries.
In fact, 27 percent of Medicare expenditures cover care in the last
year of life. Remember, everyone who enrolls in Medicare will die on
Medicare. The Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act
encourages all Medicare beneficiaries to prepare advance directives by
providing a free physician office visit for the purpose of discussing
end-of-life care choices and other issues around medical decision-
making in a time of incapacitation. Physicians will be reimbursed for
spending time with their patients to help them understand situations in
which an advance directive would be useful, medical options, the
Medicare hospice benefit and other concerns. The conversation will also
enable physicians to learn about their patients' wishes, fears,
religious beliefs, and life experiences that might influence their
medical care wishes. These are important aspects of a physician-patient
relationship that are too often unaddressed.
Another part of our bill will provide funds for the Department of
Health and Human Services to conduct a public education campaign to
raise awareness of the importance of planning for care near the end of
life. This campaign would explain what advance directives are, where
they are available, what questions need to be asked and answered, and
what to do with the executed documents. HHS, directly or through
grants, would also establish an information clearinghouse where
consumers could receive state-specific information and consumer-
friendly documents and publications.
State-specific information is needed because in addition to the
federal Patients Self Determination Act passed in 1990, most states
also have enacted advance directive laws. Because the state laws
differ, some states may be reluctant to honor advance directives that
were executed in another state. The bill we introduce today contains
language that would make all advance directives ``portable,'' that is,
useful from one state to another. As long as the documents were
lawfully executed in the state of origin, they must be accepted and
honored in the state in which they are presented, unless to do so would
violate state law.
All of the provisions in the Advance Directives Improvement and
Education Act of 2005 are there for one reason: to increase the number
of people in the United States who have advance directives, who have
discussed their wishes with their physicians and families, and who have
given copies of the directives to their loved ones, health care
providers, and legal representatives.
This new Medicare benefit and education campaign will also lead to a
reduction in litigation costs. By encouraging advance directives, cases
like Ms. Schiavo's would be less frequent; therefore the long and
costly litigation surrounding these unfortunate situations would be
reduced.
Senators Rockefeller, Lugar and I all believe that as our Medicare
population grows and life expectancy lengthens, improving care near the
end of life must be a priority. Helping people complete these critical
documents is an essential part of making the final journey as
meaningful and peaceful as possible. In addition, there are growing
numbers of health care providers, nonprofit organizations and consumer
advocates who recognize the need for change. New palliative care
programs, pain protocols and hospice services are being instituted in
facilities around the country.
This body is a legislative institution not a medical one--with the
exceptions of the distinguished Majority Leader and Senator Coburn, of
course. We cannot legislate good medical care or compassion. What we
can do, what I hope we will do, is to enact this bill so that the
American public can participate in improving end-of-life care--first,
by filling out their own advance directives and talking to their
families about them; and by raising their voices to demand that our
health care systems honor their wishes and improve the way they care
for people who are near the end of life. If we can do that, we will
have done a great deal.
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:
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 ``Advance
Directives Improvement and Education Act of 2005''.
(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. Medicare coverage of end-of-life planning consultations.
Sec. 4. Improvement of policies related to the use and portability of
advance directives.
Sec. 5. Increasing awareness of the importance of end-of-life planning.
Sec. 6. GAO studies and reports on end-of-life planning issues.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Every year 2,500,000 people die in the United States.
Eighty percent of those people die in institutions such as
hospitals, nursing homes, and other facilities. Chronic
illnesses, such as cancer and heart disease, account for 2
out of every 3 deaths.
(2) In January 2004, a study published in the Journal of
the American Medical Association concluded that many people
dying in institutions have unmet medical, psychological, and
spiritual needs. Moreover, family members of decedents who
received care
[[Page S1276]]
at home with hospice services were more likely to report a
favorable dying experience.
(3) In 1997, the Supreme Court of the United States, in its
decisions in Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill,
reaffirmed the constitutional right of competent adults to
refuse unwanted medical treatment. In those cases, the Court
stressed the use of advance directives as a means of
safeguarding that right should those adults become incapable
of deciding for themselves.
(4) A study published in 2002 estimated that the overall
prevalence of advance directives is between 15 and 20 percent
of the general population, despite the passage of the Patient
Self-Determination Act in 1990, which requires that health
care providers tell patients about advance directives.
(5) Competent adults should complete advance care plans
stipulating their health care decisions in the event that
they become unable to speak for themselves. Through the
execution of advance directives, including living wills and
durable powers of attorney for health care according to the
laws of the State in which they reside, individuals can
protect their right to express their wishes and have them
respected.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to improve
access to information about individuals' health care options
and legal rights for care near the end of life, to promote
advance care planning and decisionmaking so that individuals'
wishes are known should they become unable to speak for
themselves, to engage health care providers in disseminating
information about and assisting in the preparation of advance
directives, which include living wills and durable powers of
attorney for health care, and for other purposes.
SEC. 3. MEDICARE COVERAGE OF END-OF-LIFE PLANNING
CONSULTATIONS.
(a) Coverage.--Section 1861(s)(2) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(2)), as amended by section 642(a) of
the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and
Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173; 117 Stat.
2322), is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (Y), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (Z), by inserting ``and'' at the end;
and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(AA) end-of-life planning consultations (as defined in
subsection (bbb));''.
(b) Services Described.--Section 1861 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x), as amended by section 706(b)
of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and
Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173; 117 Stat.
2339), is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``End-Of-Life Planning Consultation
``(bbb) The term `end-of-life planning consultation' means
physicians' services--
``(1) consisting of a consultation between the physician
and an individual regarding--
``(A) the importance of preparing advance directives in
case an injury or illness causes the individual to be unable
to make health care decisions;
``(B) the situations in which an advance directive is
likely to be relied upon;
``(C) the reasons that the development of a comprehensive
end-of-life plan is beneficial and the reasons that such a
plan should be updated periodically as the health of the
individual changes;
``(D) the identification of resources that an individual
may use to determine the requirements of the State in which
such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that
individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to
communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding
the designation of a surrogate decision maker (health care
proxy); and
``(E) whether or not the physician is willing to follow the
individual's wishes as expressed in an advance directive; and
``(2) that are furnished to an individual on an annual
basis or immediately following any major change in an
individual's health condition that would warrant such a
consultation (whichever comes first).''.
(c) Waiver of Deductible and Coinsurance.--
(1) Deductible.--The first sentence of section 1833(b) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 l(b)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' before ``(6)''; and
(B) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, and (7) such deductible shall not apply with
respect to an end-of-life planning consultation (as defined
in section 1861(bbb))''.
(2) Coinsurance.--Section 1833(a)(1) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 l(a)(1)) is amended--
(A) in clause (N), by inserting ``(or 100 percent in the
case of an end-of-life planning consultation, as defined in
section 1861(bbb))'' after ``80 percent''; and
(B) in clause (O), by inserting ``(or 100 percent in the
case of an end-of-life planning consultation, as defined in
section 1861(bbb))'' after ``80 percent''.
(d) Payment for Physicians' Services.--Section 1848(j)(3)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(j)(3)), as
amended by section 611(c) of the Medicare Prescription Drug,
Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-
173; 117 Stat. 2304), is amended by inserting ``(2)(AA),''
after ``(2)(W),''.
(e) Frequency Limitation.--Section 1862(a)(1) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(a)(1)), as amended by section
613(c) of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and
Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173; 117 Stat.
2306), is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (L);
(2) by striking the semicolon at the end of subparagraph
(M) and inserting ``, and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(N) in the case of end-of-life planning consultations (as
defined in section 1861(bbb)), which are performed more
frequently than is covered under paragraph (2) of such
section;''.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to services furnished on or after January 1,
2006.
SEC. 4. IMPROVEMENT OF POLICIES RELATED TO THE USE AND
PORTABILITY OF ADVANCE DIRECTIVES.
(a) Medicare.--Section 1866(f) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395cc(f)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``and if presented by
the individual (or on behalf of the individual), to include
the content of such advance directive in a prominent part of
such record'' before the semicolon at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon at the end;
(C) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(D) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new
subparagraph:
``(F) to provide each individual with the opportunity to
discuss issues relating to the information provided to that
individual pursuant to subparagraph (A) with an appropriately
trained professional.'';
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``a written'' and
inserting ``an''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5)(A) In addition to the requirements of paragraph (1),
a provider of services, Medicare Advantage organization, or
prepaid or eligible organization (as the case may be) shall
give effect to an advance directive executed outside the
State in which such directive is presented, even one that
does not appear to meet the formalities of execution, form,
or language required by the State in which it is presented to
the same extent as such provider or organization would give
effect to an advance directive that meets such requirements,
except that a provider or organization may decline to honor
such a directive if the provider or organization can
reasonably demonstrate that it is not an authentic expression
of the individual's wishes concerning his or her health care.
Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to authorize the
administration of medical treatment otherwise prohibited by
the laws of the State in which the directive is presented.
``(B) The provisions of this paragraph shall preempt any
State law to the extent such law is inconsistent with such
provisions. The provisions of this paragraph shall not
preempt any State law that provides for greater portability,
more deference to a patient's wishes, or more latitude in
determining a patient's wishes.''.
(b) Medicaid.--Section 1902(w) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1396a(w)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by striking ``in the individual's medical record'' and
inserting ``in a prominent part of the individual's current
medical record''; and
(ii) by inserting ``and if presented by the individual (or
on behalf of the individual), to include the content of such
advance directive in a prominent part of such record'' before
the semicolon at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon at the end;
(C) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(D) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new
subparagraph:
``(F) to provide each individual with the opportunity to
discuss issues relating to the information provided to that
individual pursuant to subparagraph (A) with an appropriately
trained professional.'';
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``a written'' and
inserting ``an''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following paragraph:
``(6)(A) In addition to the requirements of paragraph (1),
a provider or organization (as the case may be) shall give
effect to an advance directive executed outside the State in
which such directive is presented, even one that does not
appear to meet the formalities of execution, form, or
language required by the State in which it is presented to
the same extent as such provider or organization would give
effect to an advance directive that meets such requirements,
except that a provider or organization may decline to honor
such a directive if the provider or organization can
reasonably demonstrate that it is not an authentic expression
of the individual's wishes concerning his or her health care.
Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to authorize the
administration of medical treatment otherwise prohibited by
the laws of the State in which the directive is presented.
``(B) The provisions of this paragraph shall preempt any
State law to the extent such law is inconsistent with such
provisions. The provisions of this paragraph shall not
preempt any State law that provides for greater portability,
more deference to a patient's wishes, or more latitude in
determining a patient's wishes.''.
[[Page S1277]]
(c) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the amendments
made by subsections (a) and (b) shall apply to provider
agreements and contracts entered into, renewed, or extended
under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395
et seq.), and to State plans under title XIX of such Act (42
U.S.C. 1396 et seq.), on or after such date as the Secretary
of Health and Human Services specifies, but in no case may
such date be later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act.
(2) Extension of effective date for state law amendment.--
In the case of a State plan under title XIX of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) which the Secretary of
Health and Human Services determines requires State
legislation in order for the plan to meet the additional
requirements imposed by the amendments made by subsection
(b), the State plan shall not be regarded as failing to
comply with the requirements of such title solely on the
basis of its failure to meet these additional requirements
before the first day of the first calendar quarter beginning
after the close of the first regular session of the State
legislature that begins after the date of enactment of this
Act. For purposes of the previous sentence, in the case of a
State that has a 2-year legislative session, each year of the
session is considered to be a separate regular session of the
State legislature.
SEC. 5. INCREASING AWARENESS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF END-OF-LIFE
PLANNING.
Title III of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241
et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new
part:
``PART R--PROGRAMS TO INCREASE AWARENESS OF ADVANCE DIRECTIVE PLANNING
ISSUES
``SEC. 399Z-1. ADVANCE DIRECTIVE EDUCATION CAMPAIGNS AND
INFORMATION CLEARINGHOUSES.
``(a) Advance Directive Education Campaign.--The Secretary
shall, directly or through grants awarded under subsection
(c), conduct a national public education campaign--
``(1) to raise public awareness of the importance of
planning for care near the end of life;
``(2) to improve the public's understanding of the various
situations in which individuals may find themselves if they
become unable to express their health care wishes;
``(3) to explain the need for readily available legal
documents that express an individual's wishes, through
advance directives (including living wills, comfort care
orders, and durable powers of attorney for health care); and
``(4) to educate the public about the availability of
hospice care and palliative care.
``(b) Information Clearinghouse.--The Secretary, directly
or through grants awarded under subsection (c), shall provide
for the establishment of a national, toll-free, information
clearinghouse as well as clearinghouses that the public may
access to find out about State-specific information regarding
advance directive and end-of-life decisions.
``(c) Grants.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall use at least 60
percent of the funds appropriated under subsection (d) for
the purpose of awarding grants to public or nonprofit private
entities (including States or political subdivisions of a
State), or a consortium of any of such entities, for the
purpose of conducting education campaigns under subsection
(a) and establishing information clearinghouses under
subsection (b).
``(2) Period.--Any grant awarded under paragraph (1) shall
be for a period of 3 years.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$25,000,000.''.
SEC. 6. GAO STUDIES AND REPORTS ON END-OF-LIFE PLANNING
ISSUES.
(a) Study and Report on Compliance With Advance Directives
and Other Advance Planning Documents.--
(1) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study on the effectiveness of advance
directives in making patients' wishes known and honored by
health care providers.
(2) Report.--Not later than the date that is 18 months
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller
General of the United States shall submit to Congress a
report on the study conducted under paragraph (1) together
with recommendations for such legislation and administrative
action as the Comptroller General of the United States
determines to be appropriate.
(b) Study and Report on Establishment of National Advance
Directive Registry.--
(1) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study on the implementation of the amendments
made by section 3 (relating to medicare coverage of end-of-
life planning consultations).
(2) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit to Congress a report on the study
conducted under paragraph (1) together with recommendations
for such legislation and administrative action as the
Comptroller General of the United States determines to be
appropriate.
(c) Study and Report on Establishment of National Advance
Directive Registry.--
(1) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study on the feasibility of a national
registry for advance directives, taking into consideration
the constraints created by the privacy provisions enacted as
a result of the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act.
(2) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit to Congress a report on the study
conducted under paragraph (1) together with recommendations
for such legislation and administrative action as the
Comptroller General of the United States determines to be
appropriate.
______
By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Ms. Mikulski):
S. 348. A bill to designate Poland as a program country under the
visa waiver program established under section 217 of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with
Senator Mikulski, a bill that would designate Poland as a program
country under the Visa Waiver Program under section 217 of the
Immigration Nationality Act.
As we celebrate an historic period with the first Iraqi elections in
over fifty years, it is important to appreciate the sacrifices our
allies have made to make such an event possible. America must continue
to solidify the bond with its allies by assisting their governments and
citizens when possible. This legislation brings us closer to a country
that has been by our side through a time of war and continues to be a
partner in the global freedom.
Since the founding of the United States, Poland has proven its
steadfast dedication to the causes of freedom and friendship with the
United States. This has been exemplified by the brave actions of Polish
patriots such as Casimir Pulaski and Tadeusz Kosciuszco during the
American Revolution. Polish history provides pioneering examples of
democracy and religious tolerance, and this is reflected in their
constitution that states, ``Freedom of faith and religion shall be
ensured to everyone.''
Poland's revolt from the Soviet Union's communist stranglehold is a
more recent example of their dedication to freedom. They are a prime
example of Ronald Reagan's vision to end the Cold War. Last year, when
I met Lech Walesa, the tenacious leader of Poland's Solidarity movement
and former President of Poland, I was reminded of the profound struggle
the country endured to bring democracy to their people.
And their commitment to preserving freedom and global security
continues today. On March 12, 1999, Poland became a member of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization. This was followed by admission into the
European Union on May 1, 2004. Poland was a staunch ally to the United
States in Operation Iraqi Freedom and has committed 2,300 troops to
help with the ongoing peace efforts in Iraq.
In addition to Poland's efforts as a global ally, its people have
contributed greatly within our borders. Nearly nine million people of
Polish ancestry live in the United States. Polish immigrants have
played an integral role in the success of industry and agriculture in
Pennsylvania and throughout the United States.
Currently, the United States administers the Visa Waiver Program to
citizens of twenty-seven countries. The program allows citizens from
Visa Waiver Program countries to visit the United States as tourists,
and Poland has earned the right to participate. I believe Poland
deserves to be the twenty-eighth country to participate in the program.
The 100,000 Polish citizens who visit the United States annually must
currently pay a $100 fee to apply for a visa. Many of these applicants
are visiting family, often for wedding celebrations or funerals. In an
expression of good faith, in 1991 the Polish government unilaterally
repealed the visa requirement for U.S. citizens traveling to Poland for
less than 90 days.
I am aware of past concerns about Polish visa refusal rates, but a
closer look shows that refusal rates can be an inaccurate measure
because they are based on decisions made by a very short interview
process rather than the actual behavior of non-immigrants. Often,
refusal rates do not reflect the propensity of nationals from that
country to overstay their visas. More importantly, Poland's refusal
rate does not reflect a high propensity for terrorism. The State
Department has given no indication that the potential for terrorism in
Poland significantly exceeds that of the 27 countries currently
participating in the Visa Waiver
[[Page S1278]]
Program. Please be assured that I am sensitive to arguments that have
concerns about our national security at the core. However, our past
history with Polish citizens visiting the United States does not favor
this argument.
For all Polish citizens and Polish Americans, I ask through this
legislation that Poland be deemed a designated program country for the
purposes of the Visa Waiver Program. I ask my colleagues for their
support.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to continue the fight to
right a wrong in America's visa program. I believe it's time for
America to extend the Visa Waiver program to Poland. I'm pleased to
have formed a bipartisan partnership with Senator Santorum to
reintroduce our bill to get it done.
Last fall, Senator Santorum and I met with a hero of the Cold War,
Lech Walesa. When he jumped over the wall of the Gdansk shipyard, he
took Poland and the whole world with him. He told us that the visa
issue is a question of honor for Poland. That day, we introduced a bill
to once again stand in solidarity with the father of Solidarity by
extending the Visa Waiver program to Poland.
This morning, I had the honor of hosting Poland's Foreign Minister,
Professor Adam Rotfeld. We reaffirmed and cemented the close ties
between the Polish and American peoples. Senator Santorum and I heard
loud and clear that the visa waiver program remains a high priority for
Poland.
My friends, Poland is not some Communist holdover or third-world
country begging for a handout. The Cold War is over. Poland is a free
and democratic nation. Poland is a NATO ally and a member of the
European Union. But America's visa policy still treats Poland as a
second-class citizen. That is just wrong.
Poland is a reliable ally, not just by treaty but in deeds. Warsaw
hosted an international Conference on Combating Terrorism less than two
months after the September 11 attacks. Poland continues to modernize
its Armed Forces so they can operate with the Armed Forces of the U.S.
and other NATO allies, buying American F-16s and Shadow UAVs and
humvees.
More importantly, Polish troops have stood side by side with
America's Armed Forces. Polish ships participated in Desert Shield and
Desert Storm during the 1990-91 Gulf War. Poland sent troops to Bosnia
as part of UNPROFOR and IFOR. Poland sent troops as part of the
international coalition in Afghanistan.
Polish troops fought alongside American and British and Australian
troops from day one of the Iraq war. They are there because they want
to be reliable allies. Because they are ready to stand with us even
when the mission is risky and unpopular. Today, Poland still commands
multinational forces in the South Central region of Iraq. Nearly 2,500
Polish troops are still on the ground in Iraq, sharing the burden and
the risk and the casualties.
So why are Singapore and San Marino among the 27 countries in the
Visa Waiver program, but Poland is not?
President Kwasniewski raised this issue with President Bush last year
and again this week. The President has said this is a matter for
Congress. It's time for us to act.
The bill Senator Santorum and I are introducing today will add Poland
to the list of designated countries in the Visa Waiver program. That
will allow Polish citizens to travel to the U.S. for tourism or
business for up to sixty days without needing to stand in line to get a
visa. That means it will be easier for Poles to visit family and
friends or do business in America. Shouldn't we make it easier for the
Pulaskis and Kosciuszkos and Marie Curies of today to visit our
country?
We know that our borders will be no less secure because of these
Polish visitors to our country. But we know that our alliance will be
more secure because of this legislation.
I urge our colleagues to join us in support of this important bill.
______
By Mr. DOMENICI:
S. 349. A bill to provide for the appointment of additional judges
for the district of New Mexico; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that continues
my efforts to address a significant problem in the state of New Mexico,
a problem that the Judicial Conference of the United States has
previously described as a ``crisis.'' According to the latest survey by
the Judicial Conference, the weighted caseload for the District of New
Mexico is now the fourth highest in the Nation. This is in spite of the
fact that in 2002 Congress approved a temporary judgeship for New
Mexico which the President has filled.
Based on this heavy workload, the Judicial Conference recently
recommended 2 additional permanent judgeships, as well as an additional
temporary judgeship for New Mexico; Only 2 districts in California, one
in Florida, and one in New York were recommended to get more judgeships
than New Mexico. The legislation I have introduced today reflects this
recommendation.
In the 12-month period ending on June 30, 2002, the number of
criminal filings per judgeship increased from 222 to 320. This is
compared to the national average of 81. You don't have to be a
mathematical genius to figure out that this is just short of four times
the national average. During this same time period, the number of
weighted filings increased from 673 per judgeship to 739. The national
average is 504 and the Judicial Conference has set the benchmark at 430
weighted cases per judgeship. The District of New Mexico is clearly in
need of relief from this crisis.
The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the right to a
speedy trial in all criminal cases. The United States Supreme Court has
called this guarantee ``one of the most basic rights preserved by our
Constitution,'' 386 U.S. 213. We must ensure that our States have the
proper judicial resources to guarantee the basic right promised to
Americans more than 200 years ago. The bill that I am introducing
provides such necessary resources to New Mexico.
Without additional judges, this problem will only continue to grow as
the country focuses more intently on the security of our borders. I
hope that my colleagues will act quickly to authorize these necessary
additional judgeships for New Mexico.
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. 349
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL JUDGES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO.
(a) Permanent District Judgeships.--
(1) In general.--The President shall appoint, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate, 2 additional district
judges for the district of New Mexico.
(2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table under
section 133(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by
striking the item relating to New Mexico and inserting the
following:
``New Mexico.................................................8.''.....
(b) Temporary Judgeship.--
(1) In general.--The President shall appoint, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate, 1 additional district
judge for the district of New Mexico.
(2) Vacancy not filled.--The first vacancy in the office of
district judge in the district of New Mexico occurring 10
years or more after the confirmation date of the judge named
to fill the temporary district judgeship created by this
subsection, shall not be filled.
______
By Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Feingold, Mr.
Coleman, and Mr. Smith):
S. 350. A bill to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide
assistance for orphans and other vulnerable children in developing
countries, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Assistance for
Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children in Developing Countries Act of
2005.
On October 7, 2004, I introduced S. 2939, a bill to improve our
ability to provide assistance to orphans and vulnerable children in
developing countries. Because of the gravity and urgency of the growing
AIDS orphans crisis, I am reintroducing my bill.
The unprecedented AIDS orphan crisis in sub-Saharan Africa has
profound
[[Page S1279]]
implications for political stability, development, and human welfare
that extend far beyond the region. Sub-Saharan African nations stand to
lose generations of educated and trained professionals who can
contribute meaningfully to their countries' development. Orphaned
children, many of whom are homeless, are more likely to resort to
prostitution and other criminal behavior to survive. Most
frighteningly, these uneducated, poorly socialized, and stigmatized
young adults are extremely vulnerable to being recruited into criminal
gangs, rebel groups, or extremist organizations that offer shelter and
food and act as ``surrogate'' families. It is imperative that the
international community respond to this crisis.
An estimated 110 million orphans live in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia,
Latin America, and the Caribbean. The HIV/AIDS pandemic is rapidly
expanding the orphan population. Currently an estimated 14 million
children have been orphaned by AIDS, most of whom live in sub-Saharan
Africa. This number is projected to soar to more than 25 million by
2010. The pandemic is orphaning generations of African children and is
compromising the overall development prospects of their countries.
Most orphans in the developing world live in extremely disadvantaged
circumstances. Poor communities in the developing world struggle to
meet the basic food, clothing, health care, and educational needs of
orphans. Experts recommend supporting community-based organizations to
assist these children. Such an approach enables the children to remain
connected to their communities, traditions, rituals, and extended
families.
My bill seeks to improve assistance to orphans and other vulnerable
children in developing countries. It would require the United States
Government to develop a comprehensive strategy for providing such
assistance and would authorize the President to support community-based
organizations that provide basic care for orphans and vulnerable
children.
Orphans are less likely to be in school, and more likely to be
working full time. Yet only education can help children acquire the
knowledge and develop the skills they need to build a better future.
For many children, the primary barrier to an education is the expense
of school fees, uniforms, supplies, and other costs. My bill aims to
improve enrollment and access to primary school education by supporting
programs that reduce the negative impact of school fees and other
expenses. It also would reaffirm our commitment to international school
lunch programs. Studies have shown that school food programs provide an
incentive for children to stay in school. School meals provide basic
nutrition to children who otherwise do not have access to reliable
food.
Many children who lose one or both parents often face difficulty in
asserting their inheritance rights. Even when the inheritance rights of
women and children are spelled out in law, such rights are difficult to
claim and are seldom enforced. In many countries it is difficult or
impossible for a widow--even if she has small children--to claim
property after the death of her husband. This often leaves the most
vulnerable children impoverished and homeless. My bill seeks to support
programs that protect the inheritance rights of orphans and widows with
children.
The AIDS orphan crisis in sub-Saharan Africa has implications for
political stability, development, and human welfare that extend far
beyond the region, affecting governments and people worldwide. Every 14
seconds another child is orphaned by AIDS. Turning the tide on this
crisis will require a coordinated, comprehensive, and swift response. I
am hopeful that Senators will join me in backing this legislation.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations I Committee, Senator Lugar, in reintroducing
the Assistance for Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children in Developing
Countries Act. Today, we are reintroducing a bill that we worked on
together in the 108th Congress--a bill that will help those most
vulnerable to the HIV/AIDS pandemic throughout the world.
An estimated 14 million children have lost either one or both parents
to HIV/AIDS. By the year 2010, It is estimated that this number will
grow to 25 million. The pandemic has created an orphans crisis,
especially in sub-Sahara Africa where this crisis is most severe.
The struggle of those orphaned by this pandemic is heartbreaking.
These children face the trauma of watching their parents die. They are
forced at a very young age to care for their younger siblings while
suffering from deep poverty, hunger, and sicknesses.
A girl from Uganda who lost her parents to HIV/AIDS at age 11 told
the BBC:
When my mother died we suffered so much. There was no food,
and there was no one to look after us. We didn't even have
money to buy soap and salt. We wanted to run away to our
other grandparents, but we didn't have transport to go there.
I tried to be positive, but it was difficult. I missed my
mother because I loved her so much.
Picture this story repeated 14 million times throughout the world. We
cannot stand by and allow this suffering to continue.
The Lugar-Boxer legislation that is being introduced today is
designed to help these orphans and other vulnerable children who have
been affected by the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
First, our bill would authorize the President to provide assistance
to orphans and other vulnerable children in developing countries.
Specific authorization is provided in the areas of basic care, HIV/AIDS
treatment, school food programs, protection of inheritance rights, and
education and employment training assistance.
Second, this legislation calls on the President to use U.S. foreign
assistance to support programs that eliminate school fees. Throughout
the world, many orphans are prevented from attending school because
they cannot afford to pay school fees or are forced to financially
support their families or care for sick relatives.
And, third, our bill would require the President to develop and
submit to Congress a strategy for coordinating, implementing, and
monitoring assistance programs for orphans and vulnerable children.
This strategy must include measurable performance indicators to
ensure that our policies are effective in helping orphans and
vulnerable children.
Once again, Mr. President, I thank Chairman Lugar for working with me
on this bipartisan legislation. I also thank Congresswoman Lee for her
leadership on this issue in the House of Representatives.
I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this important bill.
______
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Akaka, Mrs. Boxer,
Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Inouye,
Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Mikulski, Mr.
Sarbanes, and Mr. Reed):
S. 351. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide for patient protection by limiting the number of mandatory
overtime hours a nurse may be required to work in certain providers of
services to which payments are made under the Medicare Program; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues,
Senators Kerry, Clinton, Sarbanes, Corzine, Mikulski, Dodd, Levin,
Reed, Lieberman, Feingold, Inouye, and Akaka in introducing the Safe
Nursing and Patient Care Act.
Current Federal safety standards limit work hours for pilots, flight
attendants, truck drivers, railroad engineers and other professionals,
in order to protect the public safety. However, no similar limitation
currently exists for the nation's nurses, who care for so many of our
most vulnerable citizens.
The Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act will limit mandatory overtime
for nurses in order to protect patient safety and improve working
conditions for nurses. Across the country, the widespread practice of
mandatory overtime means that over-worked nurses are often providing
care in unacceptable circumstances. A recent study from the University
of Pennsylvania School of Nursing found that nurses who work shifts of
twelve and a half hours or more are three times more likely to commit
an error than nurses who work a standard shift of eight and a half
[[Page S1280]]
hours or less. Restrictions for mandatory overtime will help ensure
that nurses are able to provide the highest quality of care to their
patients.
Some hospitals have already taken action to deal with this serious
problem. Over the last few years in Massachusetts, Brockton Hospital
and St. Vincent Hospital agreed to limit mandatory overtime as part of
negotiations following successful strikes by nurses. These limits will
protect patients and improve working conditions for the nurses, and
will help in the recruitment and retention of nurses in the future.
Job dissatisfaction and harsh overtime hours are major factors in the
current shortage of nurses. Nationally, the shortfall is expected to
rise to 20 percent in coming years. A major goal of the Safe Nursing
and Patient Care Act is to improve the quality of life for nurses, so
that more persons will enter the nursing profession and remain in it.
Improving conditions for nurses is an essential part of our ongoing
effort to reduce medical errors, improve patient outcomes, and
encourage more Americans to become and remain nurses. The Safe Nursing
and Patient Care Act is a significant step that Congress can take to
support better quality care for all Americans, and improve working
conditions for our nation's nurses, and I urge my colleagues to support
it.
______
By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Warner,
Mr. Chafee, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Levin, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Allen, Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Jeffords, Ms. Collins, Mr. Sarbanes, Ms. Snowe,
Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Reed, Mr. Dayton, and Mr. Kerry):
S. 352. A bill to revise certain requirements for H-2B employers and
require submission of information regarding H-2B non-immigrants, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation
that is desperately needed by small and seasonal businesses all over
the Nation. These businesses are in crisis. They need seasonal workers
before the summer so that they can survive. For many years they have
relied on the H2B Visa program to meet these needs, but this year they
can't get the temporary labor they need because they have been shut out
of the H-2B visa program. That program lets them hire temporary foreign
workers when no American workers are available.
So today, I join with my colleague Senator Gregg to introduce
legislation that provides a quick fix to the H-2B problem. The ``Save
our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act'' will help these employers by
doing three things--temporarily exempting good actor workers from the
H-2B cap, protecting against fraud in the H-2B program and providing a
fair and balanced allocation system for H-2B visas. I urge my
colleagues to work with us to pass this legislation quickly to save
these businesses and the thousands of American jobs they provide.
Many in this body know about the H-2B crisis. All this week we have
been talking about the litigation crisis--but a real crisis to
thousands of small and seasonal businesses is the worker shortage they
face as they approach the summer season. These small businesses count
on the H-2B Visa Program to keep their businesses afloat. And this
year, because the cap of 66,000 was reached so early in the year, many
of these businesses will be unable to get the seasonal workers that
they need to survive.
Hitting the cap so early has had a great impact on Maryland. We have
a lot of summer seasonal businesses in Maryland, on the Eastern Shore,
in Ocean City or working the Chesapeake Bay. Many of our businesses use
the program year after year. They hire all the American workers they
can find, but they need additional help to meet seasonal demands.
Because the cap was reached so early this year, for the second year in
a row, summer employers face a disadvantage. They can't use the
program, so they can't meet their seasonal needs and many will be
forced to limit services, lay-off permanent U.S. workers or, worse yet,
close their doors.
These are family businesses and small businesses in small communities
in Maryland. If the business suffers the whole community suffers. For
seafood companies like J.M. Clayton, what they do is more than a
business, it's a way of life. Started over a century ago and run by the
great grandsons of the founder, J.M. Clayton works the waters of the
Chesapeake Bay, supplying crabs, crabmeat and other seafood, including
Maryland's famous oysters, to restaurants, markets, and wholesalers
allover the Nation. It is the oldest working crab processing plant in
the world and by employing 65 H-2B workers the company can retain over
30 full-time American workers.
But its not just seafood companies that have a long history on the
Eastern Shore. It's companies like S.E.W. Friel Cannery, which began
its business over 100 years ago when there were 300 canneries on the
Eastern Shore. But now those others are gone and Friel's is the last
corn cannery left. Ten years ago, when the cannery could not find local
workers, it turned to the new H-2B Visa Program. It has used the
program every year since, and many workers are repeat users who come
each year and then go home after the season. What's important is that
having this help each year has not only allowed the company to maintain
its American workforce, but it has paved the way for local workers to
return to the cannery. They now employ 75 full time and 190 seasonal
workers, along with 70 farmers and additional suppliers.
Now these employers can't just turn to the H-2B program whenever they
want seasonal workers. First, employers must try to vigorously recruit
U.S. workers. They must demonstrate to the Department of Labor that
there are no U.S. workers available. Only after that are they allowed
to fill seasonal vacancies with H-2B visa workers. The workers that
they bring in often participate in the H-2B program year after year.
They often work for the same companies. But they cannot and do not stay
in the U.S. They return to their home countries, to their families and
their U.S. employer must go through the whole visa process again the
following year to get them back. That means an employer must prove
again to the Department of Labor that they cannot get U.S. workers.
This legislative fix keeps that visa process in place. It's a short-
term legislative fix to solve the immediate H-2B visa shortage. It does
not take the place of comprehensive immigration reform.
This legislation is a temporary two year fix. And it does four
things:
One, it exempts returning seasonal workers from the cap. These are
workers who have already successfully participated in the H-2B Visa
Program. They received a visa in one of the past three years and have
returned home to their families after their seasonal employment with a
U.S. company.
Everyone must still play by the rules. Employers must go through the
whole visa process, prove they need the seasonal help and only after
that are returning employees exempt from the cap. Employees must be
those who have left the U.S. and are requesting a new H-2B visa to come
back for another season. This new system rewards those who have played
by the rules, worked hard and successfully participated in the program.
And the bill gives a helping hand to businesses by allowing them to
retain workers who they have already trained to do their seasonal jobs.
Next, this bill creates new anti-fraud provisions. To make sure that
everyone is playing by the rules and that no one is misusing the
program. And it gives government some teeth to prevent fraud and
enforce our nation's immigration laws. A $150 anti-fraud fee ensures
that government agencies processing the H-2B visas will get added
resources to detect and prevent fraud. New sanction provisions for
those who misrepresent facts on a petition further strengthens DHS's
enforcement power. This section also sends a strong message to
employers--don't play games with U.S. jobs. Our bill reserves the
highest penalties for employer actions which harm U.S. workers.
And, this bill creates a fair allocation of visas. Now, summer
employers lose out because winter employers get all the visas. This
bill makes the system fair for all employers. We reserve half of the
visas for the winter and half for the summer. Allocating visas ensures
that, until a long-term solution is reached, all employers will have an
[[Page S1281]]
equal chance of getting the workers that they need.
Finally, the bill adds some simple reporting requirements. So that
DHS gives Congress the information it needs to make informed decisions
about the H-2B visa program in the future.
This is a quick and simple fix. It lasts just 2 years--the rest of
this year and next. And it does not get in the way of comprehensive
immigration reform.
I worked with my colleagues to get a bill with strong bipartisan
support, a bill that would work.
This bill is realistic. It provides a temporary solution because
immediate action is needed to help these small and seasonal businesses
stay in business. Yes, we need to help them now. Their seasons start
soon. And if they don't get seasonal workers this year, there may not
be any businesses around next year to help.
Every Member of the Senate who has heard from their constituents--
whether they are seafood processors, landscapers, resorts, timber
companies, fisheries, pool companies or carnivals--knows the urgency in
their voices, knows the immediacy of the problem and knows that the
Congress must act now to save these businesses. I urge my colleagues to
join this effort, support the Save our Small and Seasonal Businesses
Act, and push this Congress to fix the problem today.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 352
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 ``Save Our Small and Seasonal
Businesses Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. NUMERICAL LIMITATIONS ON H-2B WORKERS.
(a) In General.--Section 214(g) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(9) An alien counted toward the numerical limitations of
paragraph (1)(B) during any one of the 3 fiscal years prior
to the submission of a petition for a nonimmigrant worker
described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) may not be counted
toward such limitation for the fiscal year in which the
petition is approved.''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendment in subsection (a) shall take
effect as if enacted on October 1, 2004, and shall expire on
October 1, 2006.
(2) Implementation.--Not later than the date of enactment
of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall begin
accepting and processing petitions filed on behalf of aliens
described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b), in a manner
consistent with this Act and the amendments made by this Act.
SEC. 3. FRAUD PREVENTION AND DETECTION FEE.
(a) Imposition of Fee.--Section 214(c) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(c)), as amended by section
426(a) of division J of the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2005 (Public Law 108-447), is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(13)(A) In addition to any other fees authorized by law,
the Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a fraud
prevention and detection fee on an employer filing a petition
under paragraph (1) for nonimmigrant workers described in
section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b).
``(B) The amount of the fee imposed under subparagraph (A)
shall be $150.''.
(b) Use of Fees.--
(1) Fraud prevention and detection account.--Subsection (v)
of section 286 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1356), as added by section 426(b) of division J of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447),
is amended--
(A) in paragraphs (1), (2)(A), (2)(B), (2)(C), and (2)(D)
by striking ``H1-B and L'' each place it appears;
(B) in paragraph (1), as amended by subparagraph (A), by
striking ``section 214(c)(12)'' and inserting ``paragraph
(12) or (13) of section 214(c)'';
(C) in paragraphs (2)(A)(i) and (2)(B), as amended by
subparagraph (A), by striking ``(H)(i)'' each place it
appears and inserting ``(H)(i), (H)(ii), ''; and
(D) in paragraph (2)(D), as amended by subparagraph (A), by
inserting before the period at the end ``or for programs and
activities to prevent and detect fraud with respect to
petitions under paragraph (1) or (2)(A) of section 214(c) to
grant an alien nonimmigrant status described in section
101(a)(15)(H)(ii)''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--The heading of such subsection
286 is amended by striking ``H1-B and L''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a)
and (b) shall take effect on October 1, 2005.
SEC. 4. SANCTIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 214(c) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(c)), as amended by section 3,
is further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(14)(A) If the Secretary of Homeland Security finds,
after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, a substantial
failure to meet any of the conditions of the petition to
admit or otherwise provide status to a nonimmigrant worker
under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) or a willful
misrepresentation of a material fact in such petition--
``(i) the Secretary of Homeland Security may, in addition
to any other remedy authorized by law, impose such
administrative remedies (including civil monetary penalties
in an amount not to exceed $10,000 per violation) as the
Secretary of Homeland Security determines to be appropriate;
and
``(ii) the Secretary of Homeland Security may deny
petitions filed with respect to that employer under section
204 or paragraph (1) of this subsection during a period of at
least 1 year but not more than 5 years for aliens to be
employed by the employer.
``(B) The Secretary of Homeland Security may delegate to
the Secretary of Labor, with the agreement of the Secretary
of Labor, any of the authority given to the Secretary of
Homeland Security under subparagraph (A)(i).
``(C) In determining the level of penalties to be assessed
under subparagraph (A), the highest penalties shall be
reserved for willful failures to meet any of the conditions
of the petition that involve harm to United States workers.
``(D) In this paragraph, the term `substantial failure'
means the willful failure to comply with the requirements of
this section that constitutes a significant deviation from
the terms and conditions of a petition.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 2005.
SEC. 5. ALLOCATION OF H-2B VISAS DURING A FISCAL YEAR.
Section 214(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1184(g)), as amended by section 2, is further amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(10) The numerical limitations of paragraph (1)(B) shall
be allocated for a fiscal year so that the total number of
aliens who enter the United States pursuant to a visa or
other provision of nonimmigrant status under section
101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) during the first 6 months of such fiscal
year is not more than 33,000.''.
SEC. 6. SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS OF INFORMATION REGARDING H-2B
NONIMMIGRANTS.
Section 416 of the American Competitiveness and Workforce
Improvement Act of 1998 (title IV of division C of Public Law
105-277; 8 U.S.C. 1184 note) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Attorney General'' each place that term
appears and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Provision of Information.--
``(1) Quarterly notification.--Beginning not later than
March 1, 2006, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall
notify, on a quarterly basis, the Committee on the Judiciary
of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of House of
Representatives of the number of aliens who during the
preceding 1-year period--
``(A) were issued visas or otherwise provided nonimmigrant
status under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b)); or
``(B) had such a visa or such status expire or be revoked
or otherwise terminated.
``(2) Annual submission.--Beginning in fiscal year 2007,
the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit, on an annual
basis, to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives and the Senate--
``(A) information on the countries of origin of,
occupations of, and compensation paid to aliens who were
issued visas or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status under
section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b)) during the
previous fiscal year;
``(B) the number of aliens who had such a visa or such
status expire or be revoked or otherwise terminated during
each month of such fiscal year; and
``(C) the number of aliens who were provided nonimmigrant
status under such section during both such fiscal year and
the preceding fiscal year.
``(3) Information maintained by state.--If the Secretary of
Homeland Security determines that information maintained by
the Secretary of State is required to make a submission
described in paragraph (1) or (2), the Secretary of State
shall provide such information to the Secretary of Homeland
Security upon request.''.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 352, the
Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act. This legislation, which I'm
proud to cosponsor, would provide emergency relief to thousands of
small and seasonal businesses across the country, many of which are
significant employers in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleague from
Virginia, Senator George Allen. I particularly would like to thank
Senator Barbara Mikulski and Senator Judd Gregg, the sponsors of this
bipartisan bill, for their leadership in this area.
[[Page S1282]]
Our legislation is simple. It makes common-sense reforms to our H-2B
visa program that will allow our small and seasonal companies an
opportunity to remain open for business. Without these modifications,
these employers will continue to struggle in their efforts to find the
necessary employees to keep their businesses running.
The H-2B visa program is designed to allow nonagricultural businesses
to supplement their workforce with non-immigrant workers when American
workers cannot be found. The cap is set at 66,000 per fiscal year,
which begins on October 1 of each year. Employers can only apply for a
visa 120 days before the work is needed.
For each of the last two years, this statutory cap was reached soon
after the fiscal year began. In 2004, the cap was reached on March 20.
As a result, many businesses, mostly summer employers, were unable to
obtain the temporary workers they needed because the cap was filled
prior to the day they could even apply for the visas.
Consequently, these businesses sustained significant economic losses.
This year the H-2B visa cap was reached on January 3, 2005. Now, even
more businesses, especially in the seafood industry which has a long
history in Virginia and the Chesapeake Bay, are susceptible to
significant losses.
The hardships in these and other businesses are very real. Many in
the seafood industry in Virginia have come to my office, looked me
straight in the eye, and told me that their businesses aren't going to
make it another year if something isn't done. Only through passage of
this legislation can this detrimental cycle be interrupted and these
business can be saved.
There are three main criticisms of this program which I am certain
some will raise: these H-2B workers are taking jobs away from
Americans; automation of these jobs makes H-2B workers unnecessary; and
finally, these workers come into the U.S. under the guise of returning
home after they've finished, but they never do. In my view, these
criticisms of the H-2B program simply do not reflect the reality.
Believe me, I am a strong supporter of efforts to help those
Americans who want to work get the skills they need to be successful in
the workforce. But these H-2B workers are not taking jobs from
Americans, they are filling in the gaps left vacant by Americans that
don't want them. The jobs we are talking about here are seasonal, labor
intensive, and require a certain amount of skill, mainly in the areas
of oyster and crab harvesting, seafood processing, landscaping,
reforestation, and seasonal resorts and other hospitality services.
Furthermore, most of these jobs cannot be automated. What kind of
machine will you use to fully landscape a yard, to arrange and plant
flowers? Some in the seafood industry already tried to automate parts
of crab harvesting, but it was a complete failure. The machines failed
to remove most of the bits of crab shells from the meat, and the
consumers flat out rejected it.
As for the criticism that these temporary workers won't leave, a long
review of the management of this program reveals otherwise. The
employers have successfully ensured that the workers return to their
home country. If they don't, employers aren't able to participate in
the program next year, and neither are the workers. Most consulates in
their home countries require the workers to present themselves
personally to prove that they have returned home.
The future success of the H-2B visa program rests on the ability of
businesses to participate in it, but right now, many will be denied
access to the program for the second year in a row. The bill introduced
today helps fix this problem by focusing on three main objectives to
help make the H-2B program more effective and more fair.
First, the bill will reward good workers and employers by exempting
from the cap H-2B workers who have participated in the program
successfully in one of the past three years. These are companies and
employees that have faithfully abided by the law, and they have a
successful track record of working together.
Second, the bill will make sure that the government agencies
processing the H-2B visas have the resources they need to detect and
prevent fraud. Starting on October 1, 2005, employers participating in
the program will pay an additional fee that will be placed in a Fraud
Prevention and Detection account. The Departments of State, Homeland
Security, and Labor can use these funds to educate and train their
employees to prevent and detect fraudulent visas.
Finally, the bill implements a visa allocation system that is fair
for all employers. Half of the 66,000 visas will be reserved for
employers needing workers in the winter and the other half will be
reserved for companies needing workers for the summer. This provision
allows both winter employers and summer employers an equal chance to
obtain the workers they desperately need.
These seasonal businesses just can't find enough American workers to
meet their business needs. And ultimately, that is why this program is
so important. Without Americans to fill these jobs, these businesses
need to be able to participate in the H-2B program. The current system
isn't treating small and seasonal businesses fairly and must be
reformed if we want these employers to stay in business.
In closing, I strongly support this legislation, and I hope my
colleagues in the Senate will join with me to help these small and
seasonal businesses by passing this legislation as quickly as possible.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am proud to be a strong supporter and
original cosponsor of the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act,
which is being introduced today. This legislation will ensure that the
seasonal businesses in our country have the workers they need to
support our economy and enable the economy to flourish.
I would first like to thank Senators Mikulski and Gregg for bringing
such a large, bipartisan group of Senators together to create this
legislative solution. Last year, the United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services announced in March that they had received enough
petitions to meet the cap on H-2B visas. As a result, they stopped
accepting petitions for these temporary work visas halfway through the
Federal fiscal year. This announcement was a shock to many businesses
around the country that depend on foreign workers to fill their
temporary and seasonal positions.
Tourism is the largest sector of Vermont's economy and as a result,
many Vermont businesses hire seasonal staff during their winter, summer
or fall foliage seasons. Last year, I heard from many Vermont
businesses that they were unable to employ foreign workers for their
summer and fall seasons because the cap had been reached. Not only was
this unexpected, but many of the employees were people who had been
returning to the same employer year after year. These employers lost
essential staff and, in many cases, well trained, experienced staff.
Many employers told me it is extremely difficult to find Americans to
fill these seasonal positions, especially in areas of Vermont where the
unemployment rate is less than 2 percent. One Vermont resort only
survived Vermont's fall foliage season because of the dedication of
their permanent employees. Instead of 35 housekeeping staff, they made
do with 8. Staff was asked to work 12 to 14 hours per day, 6 or 7 days
per week. At this particular resort, the vice president, general
manager, administrative and technology managers, and marketing manager
all cleaned rooms. While they are proud of the work of their staff,
they believe their business and their personnel will suffer if they are
not able to employ seasonal foreign workers again this year. They
foresee a devastating effect on the family business they have owned and
operated for the past 40 years if they are not able to bring in foreign
workers soon.
I have also heard from Vermont businesses that had to lay off or not
hire American workers because they could not find enough employees to
fill their crews. Without the workers to complete projects, they could
not hire or maintain their year-round staff. They also could not bid on
projects and many had to scale back their operations. In these
instances, the lack of seasonal workers had a direct effect on our
economy and the employment of American workers.
As many may know, I believe strongly that American workers must be
[[Page S1283]]
given the opportunity to fill jobs and strengthen our nation's
workforce. However, the companies I have referred to today, and all of
the others that have contacted me, did their utmost to find Americans
for the positions available. Efforts to find workers included: working
closely with the State of Vermont's Employment and Training office;
increasing wages and benefits; and implementing aggressive year-round
recruiting.
While many Vermont businesses were able to survive last year, thanks
to that old Yankee ingenuity, I am not optimistic about this year. The
cap on H-2B visas was reached in early January, barely a quarter of the
way through the fiscal year. It is imperative we immediately address
this problem in order to prevent further harm to this Nation's small
businesses and the economy.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the recent shortage of H-2B nonimmigrant
visas for ernporary or seasonal non-agricultural foreign workers is a
matter of great concern to many small businesses in my home state of
Maine, particularly those in the hospitality sector that rely on these
seasonal workers to supplement their local employees during the height
of the tourism season.
On January 4, a mere three months into fiscal year 2005, the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, CIS, announced that it would
immediately stop accepting applications for H-2B visas because the
annual statutory cap of 66,000 visas had been met. In other words, many
employers who require temporary workers in the spring, summer, or fall
will be unable to hire such workers because all 66,000 H-2B visas
already will have been issued within the first few months of the fiscal
year. Once again, Maine's employers will be left out in the cold,
disadvantaged by the simple fact of their later tourism season.
Without these visas, employers will be unable to hire enough workers
to keep their businesses running at normal levels. Last year, unable to
locate enough American workers willing and able to take these jobs, and
without temporary foreign workers to fill the gap, many business owners
were forced to initiate stop-gap measures that were neither ideal nor
sustainable in the long term. Many of these businesses fear that, this
year, they will have to decrease their hours of operation during what
is their busiest time of year. This would translate into lost jobs for
American workers, lost income for American businesses, and lost tax
revenue from those businesses. These losses will be significant, and
they can be avoided.
Today, I am pleased to join Senators Mikulski and Gregg, along with
several other of my distinguished colleagues, in introducing the Save
Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act of 2005. Similar to legislation
that I cosponsored last year, as well as legislation that I have
introduced in the current Congress, this bill would exclude from the
cap returning workers who were counted against the cap within the past
3 years. This legislation also seeks to address the inequities in the
current system by limiting the number of H-2B visas that can be issued
in the first 6 months of the fiscal year to no more than 33,000 visas,
or one half of the total number of visas available under the cap. By
allocating visas equally between each half of the year, employers
across the country, operating both in the winter and summer seasons,
will have a fair and equal Opportunity to hire these much-needed
workers.
In addition, this legislation includes important new anti-fraud
provisions that will strengthen our ability to detect, prevent, and
deter, fraud by those who would seek to abuse the H-2B program. These
include sanctions for employers who are found to have misrepresented II
If facts on an H-2B petition, and the creation of a Fraud Prevention
and Detection Fee of $150 for each H-2B petition. Similar to anti-fraud
fees charged in other visa categories, funds raised from this fee will
be placed in an account with the U.S. Treasury and made available to
the agencies involved in processing H-2B visas--CIS, the Department of
Labor, and the Department of State--to educate and train employees to
recognize and protect against fraud in the visa applicant process.
I believe that this anti-fraud fee serves a worthy goal, and that the
government agencies should have the resources they need to ensure the
integrity of the H-2B visa application process. However, I am concerned
about the impact that a fee of this size, in addition to the filing
fees that employers already pay, may have on many smaller businesses. I
intend to examine this issue further in order to ensure that smaller
businesses are not unfairly impacted by this provision.
We must act quickly on this legislation, or we will be too late to
help thousands of American businesses that need our help now. We cannot
be content to say: ``It's too late for this year; maybe next year.'' It
is true that comprehensive, long-term solutions may be necessary, but
we have immediate needs as well. This problem demands immediate
solutions.
In my home state of Maine, the economic impact of this visa shortage
will be harmful and widespread. When people think of Maine, what often
comes to mind is its rugged coastline, picturesque towns and villages,
and its abundant lakes and forests. Not surprisingly, tourism is the
state's largest industry. Temporary and seasonal workers play an
important role in this very important industry.
Unfortunately, there are not enough American workers willing and able
to fill the thousands of jobs necessary to provide the level of service
that Maine's visitors have come to expect. Over the years, seasonal
workers have filled this gap, becoming an integral part of Maine's
tourism and hospitality industry. In Fiscal Year 2003, the last time
Maine's employers were able to fully utilize the H-2B program, Maine
employed more than 3,000 seasonal workers. The majority of these
individuals worked in the State's resorts, inns, hotels, and
restaurants. Many are people who have returned to the same employer
summer after summer.
Let me emphasize that employers are not permitted to hire these
foreign workers unless they can prove that they have tried, and failed,
to locate available and qualified American workers through advertising
and other means. As a safeguard, current regulations require the U.S.
Department of Labor to certify that such efforts have occurred before
CIS will process the visa applications. In Maine, as in other States,
our state Department of Labor takes the lead in ensuring that employers
have taken sufficient steps to try to find local workers to fill the
positions. Unless and until more H-2B visas are made available, many
seasonal jobs will remain unfilled and American businesses will suffer.
A similar situation faces Maine's forest products industry, which
contributes approximately $5.6 billion annually to Maine's economy. In
2003, more than 600 temporary workers--mostly from Canada--were
employed as forestry workers in Maine. Many work in remote areas of the
state where there are not enough Americans able to take these jobs. By
some estimates, these foreign workers account for as much as 30-40
percent of the wood fiber that supplies paper and saw mills throughout
Maine and the Northeast. This number represents roughly 4.8 million
tons of wood annually. With an already significant shortage in the wood
supply, the loss of these temporary workers poses a serious threat to
the industry and to Maine's economy. With fewer workers available to
bring wood out of the forest and into mills, supplies will dwindle,
prices will continue to rise, and mills may be forced to curtail
production, or even temporarily discontinue operations. If this
happens, it is American workers that may lose their jobs.
The effects of the H-2B visa shortage are not limited to the tourism
and forest products industries, however. It will also be felt by
fisheries and lobstermen, junior league hockey and minor league
baseball teams. It win affect small businesses and large, visitors and
locals, young and old, from Maine to Maryland, to Wyoming and Alaska.
Mr. President, the shortage of nonimmigrant temporary or seasonal
worker visas is a problem that must be addressed, and soon. I believe
that this legislation offers a workable short-term solution, and I urge
us to move forward. We must resist the tendency to let this problem,
and the people who are affected by it, become entangled in the larger
debate about our Nation's
[[Page S1284]]
immigration policies. This is not about the number of immigrants we
should allow to come to the United States each year, or what to do with
those who violate our immigration laws. It is about temporary workers
who, for the most part, respect our laws, go home at the end of their
authorized stay, and in many cases, return again next year to provide
services that benefit our Nation's economy. It is about American
businesses that rely on these workers to take jobs that many Americans
do not want. It is about the economic impact that will be felt across
the Nation if these businesses are unable to hire temporary workers. We
need to solve this problem now, before it is too late and our economy
is harmed and jobs lost.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Save Our Small
and Seasonal Businesses Act being introduced by Senator Mikulski today.
This legislation offers a measured approach to provide needed relief to
the many small businesses that have been struggling to find enough
employees to operate during seasonal spikes in workload. Small
businesses that are seasonal often need a large number of employees for
a short portion of the year, but cannot afford to retain the same
number of people as full-time, year-round employees. They instead must
rely on temporary workers to fill the gap in their high season. In my
home State of Maryland, for example, our seafood processors are busy in
the summer and early fall, but have very little work in the winter. To
accommodate this changing need, they hire college students and local
residents as extra workers in the summer. But even with those workers
they often find themselves short-staffed. So they turn to temporary
employees who are willing to leave their home countries for a few
months to come to the U.S. and work.
Specifically, the bill being introduced today will allow anyone who
has had an H-2B visa for one of the last 3 years to return this summer
or next if an employer petitions for them to do so. Importantly,
employers still must demonstrate that they have tried and failed to
find available, qualified U.S. citizens to fill these jobs before they
file an H-2B visa application. In addition, the bill would ensure that
our summer employers are not disadvantaged by allowing no more than
half of the 66,000 visas to be allocated in the first half of the year.
Finally, the bill imposes antifraud fees on employers who willfully
misrepresent any statement on their H-2B petition and requires the
Department of Homeland Security to file reports on the demographics of
those utilizing the H-2B program.
Any changes to our immigration laws must balance the interests of
U.S. citizens and our economy while providing a fair, legal framework
for those seeking to come to our Nation from other countries. For
example, our current immigration laws already contain several general
reasons an alien seeking admission into the United States may be denied
entry: security and terrorist concerns, health-related grounds,
criminal history, public charge, i.e., indigence, seeking to work
without proper labor certification, illegal entry and/or immigration
law violations, lack of proper documents, ineligibility for
citizenship, and previous removal. Ensuring the safety of our country
requires preserving these categories.
This legislation would leave this existing framework intact. It
simply provides a fair and equitable means of distributing a very
scarce number of visas so that all employers who require extra
assistance during one season of the year may obtain that assistance. We
must resist the temptation to let the H-2B situation and the small
businesses affected by it become entangled in the larger debate over
immigration reform. Workers who use H-2B visas come to the U.S. for a
temporary period of time and are required to leave when that time
period has run. These workers respect our laws, work hard, provide
services that benefit our economy, and then return to their families at
the end of the season. For their sake and that of the small, seasonal
businesses that rely on them, we need to resolve this H-2B crisis soon.
Without this fix, our seafood processors cannot operate at full
capacity. That becomes a problem for the rest of the seafood industry,
including our watermen, who will be forced to curtail their fishing
because of an insufficient number of locations to process their
catches. In the end, the people who suffer are not the seafood
processors or the temporary workers but the watermen who cannot feed
their families. This bill provides the assistance necessary to keep our
watermen, seafood processors, and a number of other industries such as
landscapers, pool operators, and summer camps working at full capacity
this summer. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
______
By Mr. CONRAD (for himself and Mr. Dorgan):
S. 353. A bill to amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
to direct the Secretary of the Army to provide assistance to design and
construct a project to provide a continued safe and reliable municipal
water supply system for Devils Lake, to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
authorize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to construct a new municipal
water supply system for the city of Devils Lake, ND. This project is
very important to the reliability of the water supply for the residents
of Devils Lake and is needed to mitigate long-term consequences from
the rising flood waters of Devils Lake.
As many of my colleagues know, the Devils Lake region has been
plagued by a flooding disaster since 1993. During that time, Devils
Lake, a closed basin lake, has risen 25 feet, consuming land,
destroying homes, and impacting vital infrastructure. As a result of
this disaster, the city of Devils Lake faces a significant risk of
losing its water supply. Currently, six miles or approximately one-
third of the city's 40-year-old water transmission line is covered by
the rising waters of Devils Lake. The submerged section of the water
line includes numerous gate valves, air relief valves, and blow-off
discharges.
All of the water for the city's residents and businesses must flow
through this single transmission line. It is also the only link between
the water source and the city's water distribution system. Since the
transmission line is operated under relatively low pressures and is
under considerable depths of water, a minor leak could cause
significant problems. If a failure in the line were to occur, it would
be almost impossible to identify the leak and make necessary repairs,
and the city would be left without a water supply.
The city is in the process of accessing a new water source due both
to the threat of a transmission line failure and the fact that its
current water source exceeds the new arsenic standard that will take
affect in 2006. The city has worked closely with the North Dakota State
Water Commission in identifying a new water source that will not be
affected by the rising flood waters and will provide the city with
adequate water to meet its current and future needs.
The bill I am introducing today will authorize the Corps to construct
a new water supply system for the city. I believe the Federal
Government has a responsibility to assist communities mitigate the
adverse consequences resulting from this ongoing flooding disaster. In
my view, the Corps should be responsible for addressing the unintended
consequences of this flood and mitigate its long-term consequences.
This bill will help the Federal Government live up to its
responsibility and ensure that the residents of Devils Lake have a safe
and reliable water supply. I urge my colleagues to review this
legislation quickly so we can pass it this year.
______
By Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mrs. Clinton):
S. 355. A bill to require Congress to impose limits on United States
foreign debt, to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, there are many issues we confront these
days that are significant and serious. I wanted to bring one to the
attention of the Chamber as I introduce legislation.
I send a bill to the desk and ask for its appropriate referral on
behalf of myself and Senator Clinton.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be received and appropriately
referred.
[[Page S1285]]
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this legislation deals with trade. Let me
describe what was announced this morning by the administration.
Last year's trade deficit was $618 billion. You can see from this
chart what has happened in the last 8 or 9 years. Our trade deficit has
gone in the red by a dramatic amount, ending up at $618 billion for
2004.
What does that mean? That means we purchased from other countries
$618 billion worth of goods more than we sold to other countries. In
other words, every single day, 7 days a week, $1.8 billion leaves this
country and goes into foreign hands to pay for goods that we purchased
from abroad.
As a result, foreign entities have $2.5 trillion worth of claims
against our assets, our property, our stocks, and our assets. We are,
with our trade policies, selling America.
With China alone, we have a $161 billion trade deficit. This is
unbelievably out of balance. We purchase China's trinkets, trousers,
shirts, and shoes. Now they're making plans to ship Chinese automobiles
to this country.
By the way, as I told my colleagues before, in the last trade
agreement with China we agreed they could charge a tariff on imported
U.S. cars which is 10 times higher than the tariff we can charge on
Chinese cars sold in the United States.
Who did that? I don't know; some trade negotiator.
It is the same old story with cars from China, cars from Korea, wheat
to China, beef to Japan. It is the same old story.
I mentioned to my colleagues many times what Will Rogers said in the
1930s: ``The United States of America has never lost a war and never
won a conference.'' He said we can't send negotiators to Costa Rica and
come back with our shirts on. He surely must have been thinking about
the people who had been negotiating trade agreements that resulted in
these kinds of deficits.
Now our trade deficit on a yearly basis is over 5 percent of our
gross domestic product. Who holds this debt? Japan holds $715 billion
of asset claims against our country, and China, $191 billion.
Does anybody think this is healthy for our country? This kind of
trade deficit and combined trade debt is going to injure America's
future economic growth and continue to accelerate the movement of U.S.
jobs overseas. That is what is behind all of these numbers.
American corporations in recent decades have discovered that you can
move technology and capital at the speed of light. And they have
discovered there are a billion people in other parts of the world who
are willing to work for 30 cents an hour. When you can ship technology
and capital to someone overseas willing to work for 30 cents an hour,
you begin to hollow out the manufacturing sector in this country.
The news this morning of the largest trade deficit in the history of
this country is sober news. This town will sleep through it once again.
The White House will sleep through it, and so will the Congress. It
doesn't matter much to most people.
We have a debt limit in this country that says once the government
borrows a certain amount, we have to have a debate, and vote on it.
Otherwise, you can't go any further.
But there is no trade debt limit. Whatever the trade debt is, it is.
Katy bar the door, no matter how high it is. There is no requirement to
do anything about it.
The legislation I introduced, along with my colleague Senator
Clinton, will establish a trade debt limit and a trade deficit limit.
When the trade deficit exceeds 5 percent of our gross domestic product,
then it requires certain things. It is an alarm clock that requires the
administration's trade review group to have an emergency meeting, and
within 45 days the administration and the trade ambassador have to
submit to Congress a plan to reduce the trade deficit.
Somebody someplace, someday, some way has to decide the current
situation can't continue. This is all about jobs and future economic
opportunity. This is real, and it is immediate. And we have to do
something about it.
That is why we have introduced this legislation. This country has
been in a deep sleep about an abiding trade problem in which we link
with other countries in bilateral agreements. In almost every case
these are not mutually beneficial. Instead, the agreements are
beneficial to them and detrimental to us. Yet, we have people on street
corners chanting ``free trade.''
I think trade is fine, I think fair trade is important, and I think
expanding trade is valuable. But I believe free trade, if it means a
trade agreement which undercuts this country's ability to compete, free
trade which pulls the rug out from under our workers, and establishes
conditions under which we cannot compete, is wrong for this country.
I will not go through again the list of issues of potato flakes going
to Korea, beef to Japan, wheat to China. I could go through dozens of
them. I will not do that again today. My point is that at some point
somebody has to have the backbone and the will and the nerve to stand
up for this country's economic interests. That has not been done for a
long while. It needs to be done now because this trade deficit has
reached crisis proportions.
One final chart: Some said that last month the trade deficit was
actually a little better than the month before. This is a town of
warped reality on a lot of issues. Let me describe what has happened to
our trade deficit month by month since 1998. It does not take a sharp
eye to see what is happening.
This trade deficit is growing. It is dangerous. It is harmful to the
long-term economic interests of this country. We have to do something
about it.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Nelson of
Florida, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Martinez):
S. 357. A bill to expand and enhance post baccalaureate opportunities
at Hispanic-serving institutions, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the next
generation of Hispanic Serving Institutions legislation. This
legislation is critical if we, as a Nation, are going to continue to
compete in a global economy. Education is the key to building a strong
and dynamic economy, and therefore, it is our obligation to ensure
quality educational opportunities for all Americans. That is why I am
introducing, along with my colleague Senator Hutchison, the Next
Generation Hispanic Serving Institutions Act of 2005. This legislation
is supported by the Hispanic Education Coalition, an ad hoc coalition
of national organizations dedicated to improving educational
opportunities for more than 40 million Hispanics living in the United
States, including groups like National Council of La Raza, HACU, and
MALDEF. Senators Bill Nelson and Clinton have joined in this effort as
cosponsors.
According to Census Bureau data, Hispanic population in the United
States grew by 25.7 million between 1970 and 2000 and continues to grow
at a very brisk pace. The most recent census data puts the Hispanic
population at over 40 million, representing approximately 14 percent of
the U.S. population and making it the Nation's largest minority group.
Estimates project that the Hispanic population will grow by 25 million
between 2000 and 2020. By the year 2050, 1 in 4 Americans will be of
Hispanic origin.
Currently, Hispanics make up about 13 percent of the U.S. labor
force. While the overall labor force is projected to slow down over the
next decades as an increasing number of workers reach retirement age,
the Hispanic labor force is expected to continue growing at a fast
pace. It will expand by nearly 10 million workers between now and 2020,
through a combination of immigration and native-born youth reaching
working age.
Our Nation's economic and social success rests, in large part, on the
level of skills and knowledge attained by our Hispanic population.
I was one of the authors and lead supporters of the original Hispanic
Serving Institutions proposal when it was enacted as part of the Higher
Education Act in 1992 in order to increase educational opportunities
for Hispanic students. Since then, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, HSIs,
have made significant strides in increasing the number of Hispanic
students enrolling in and graduating from college. Although Hispanic-
serving institutions account for only 5 percent of all institutions of
higher education in the United States,
[[Page S1286]]
HSIs enroll over half, 51 percent, of all Hispanics pursuing higher
education degrees in the 50 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico.
While Hispanic high school graduates go on to college at higher rates
than they did even ten years ago, Hispanics still lag behind their non-
Hispanic peers in postsecondary school enrollment. In 2000, only 21.7
percent of all Hispanics ages 18 through 24 were enrolled in
postsecondary degree-granting institutions in the United States.
We must take HSIs to the next level. While the percentage of
Hispanics attending college has increased significantly over the past
few years, Hispanic students are disproportionately enrolled in 2-year
colleges, and are much less likely to finish college than their non-
Hispanic peers. In 2001, only slightly more than 1 in 10 Hispanics ages
25 years and over had received a bachelor's degree or higher.
According to the Department of Education, in 2000, Hispanics only
earned 6 percent of all bachelor's degrees awarded, 4 percent of all
master's degrees, and only 3 percent of all doctorates. But the pace of
bachelor's degrees or higher earned by Hispanics is accelerating
rapidly, according to the Department of Education. Therefore, we must
keep pace. We must increase the capacity of our institutions of higher
education to serve the increasing number of Hispanic students.
The Next Generation HSI bill does just that. Simply, this legislation
will improve educational opportunities for Hispanic students by
establishing a competitive grant program to expand post-baccalaureate
degree opportunities at HSIs, and by eliminating unnecessary and
burdensome administrative requirements HSIs must contend with.
Current law only provides support for 2-year and 4-year Hispanic
Serving Institutions. This legislation will support graduate
fellowships and support services for graduate students, facilities
improvement, faculty development, technology and distance education,
and collaborative arrangements with other institutions. This
legislation will build capacity and establish a long overdue graduate
program for HSIs.
In addition, current law places a number of unnecessary, burdensome
administrative and regulatory barriers at the gates of our HSIs. If our
goal is to increase educational opportunities for all students, and
particularly Hispanic students, then we must eliminate bureaucratic
barriers that impede access.
Accordingly, this legislation removes a 2-year period in which HSIs
must wait before becoming eligible to apply for another grant under
title V of the Higher Education Act. This 2-year wait out period
obstructs the efforts of many HSIs to implement continuing programs and
conduct long range planning. As a result, many HSIs cannot maintain
continuity in educational programming. We should be creating
opportunities to improve the quality of education, and eliminating this
wait-out period is a step in the right direction.
In addition, this bill eliminates another onerous requirement on HSIs
that other minority-serving institutions are not required to follow.
Currently, in order to be eligible as an HSI, the institution must
serve ``needy students''--meaning at least 50 percent of the degree
students are receiving Federal need-based assistance or the
institution's percentage of Pell Grant recipients exceeds the median
percentage for similar institutions receiving Pell Grants. Also, to be
eligible, 25 percent of the full time, undergraduate population must be
Hispanic. However, unlike other grant programs in the Higher Education
Act, HSIs must also show that 50 percent of the Hispanic population is
low income.
This last requirement is particularly burdensome, as it is
duplicative and unfair, and, in many cases, prevents HSIs from
providing vital educational services to Hispanic students. This
provision requires the institutions to collect information and data
that is not readily available or easily acquirable. It requires the
schools to come up with data beyond what is required for financial aid
purposes. Further, there is no other requirement in Federal law for
institutions to collect this type of data. As a result, many
institutions with large Hispanic student populations must divert
critical resources and staff to acquire this information, or they
simply do not qualify as an HSI.
To ensure that the institution continues to serve low-income
students, the Next Generation HSI Act maintains the requirement that
the institution serve needy students, but eliminates the additional
requirement that the school demonstrate that 50 percent of its Hispanic
students are low-income. The elimination of this requirement will ease
the administrative burdens placed on our schools, and further our goals
of increasing access and improving quality.
Finally, this bill facilitates the transition of Hispanic students
from 2-year colleges to 4-year colleges. As I noted earlier, Hispanics
are disproportionately enrolled in 2-year colleges as compared to their
non-Hispanic peers. To encourage and support these students' continued
education, this legislation adds as an authorized activity programs
that assist a student's transfer from a 2-year institution to a 4-year
institution.
Hispanic students now account for nearly 17 percent of the total
kindergarten through grade 12 student population. Estimates project
that this student population will grow from 11 million in 2005 to 16
million in 2020. We must provide our institutions of higher education
with the resources and flexibility they need to build capacity and
serve the increasing Hispanic student population. We must be ready for
the next generation of students to meet the demands of a competitive
workforce and to fully participate in the global economy. I ask
unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 357
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 ``Next Generation Hispanic
Serving Institutions Act''.
TITLE I--GRADUATE OPPORTUNITIES AT HISPANIC-SERVING INSTITUTIONS
SEC. 101. POSTBACCALAUREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR HISPANIC
AMERICANS.
(a) Establishment of Program.--Title V of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating part B as part C;
(2) by redesignating sections 511 through 518 as sections
521 through 528, respectively; and
(3) by inserting after section 505 the following:
``PART B--PROMOTING POSTBACCALAUREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR HISPANIC
AMERICANS
``SEC. 511. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
``(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
``(1) According to the United States Census, by the year
2050, 1 in 4 Americans will be of Hispanic origin.
``(2) Despite the dramatic increase in the Hispanic
population in the United States, the National Center for
Education Statistics reported that in 1999, Hispanics
accounted for only 4 percent of the master's degrees, 3
percent of the doctor's degrees, and 5 percent of first-
professional degrees awarded in the United States.
``(3) Although Hispanics constitute 10 percent of the
college enrollment in the United States, they comprise only 3
percent of instructional faculty in college and universities.
``(4) The future capacity for research and advanced study
in the United States will require increasing the number of
Hispanics pursuing postbaccalaureate studies.
``(5) Hispanic-serving institutions are leading the Nation
in increasing the number of Hispanics attaining graduate and
professional degrees.
``(6) Among Hispanics who received master's degrees in
1999-2000, 25 percent earned them at Hispanic-serving
institutions.
``(7) Between 1991 and 2000, the number of Hispanic
students earning master's degrees at Hispanic-serving
institutions grew 136 percent, the number receiving doctor's
degrees grew by 85 percent, and the number earning first-
professional degrees grew by 47 percent.
``(8) It is in the national interest to expand the capacity
of Hispanic-serving institutions to offer graduate and
professional degree programs.
``(9) Research is a key element in graduate education and
undergraduate preparation, particularly in science and
technology, and Congress desires to strengthen the role of
research at Hispanic-serving institutions. University
research, whether performed directly or through a
university's nonprofit research institute or foundation, is
considered an integral part of the institution and mission of
the university.
``(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this part are--
``(1) to expand postbaccalaureate educational opportunities
for, and improve the
[[Page S1287]]
academic attainment of, Hispanic students; and
``(2) to expand and enhance the postbaccalaureate academic
offerings of high quality that are educating the majority of
Hispanic college students and helping large numbers of
Hispanic students and low-income individuals complete
postsecondary degrees.
``SEC. 512. PROGRAM AUTHORITY AND ELIGIBILITY.
``(a) Program Authorized.--Subject to the availability of
funds appropriated to carry out this part, the Secretary
shall award competitive grants to eligible institutions.
``(b) Eligibility.--For the purposes of this part, an
`eligible institution' means an institution of higher
education that--
``(1) is a Hispanic-serving institution (as defined under
section 502); and
``(2) offers a postbaccalaureate certificate or degree
granting program.
``SEC. 513. AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.
``Grants awarded under this part shall be used for 1 or
more of the following activities:
``(1) Purchase, rental, or lease of scientific or
laboratory equipment for educational purposes, including
instructional and research purposes.
``(2) Construction, maintenance, renovation, and
improvement in classroom, library, laboratory, and other
instructional facilities, including purchase or rental of
telecommunications technology equipment or services.
``(3) Purchase of library books, periodicals, technical and
other scientific journals, microfilm, microfiche, and other
educational materials, including telecommunications program
materials.
``(4) Support for needy postbaccalaureate students
including outreach, academic support services, mentoring,
scholarships, fellowships, and other financial assistance to
permit the enrollment of such students in postbaccalaureate
certificate and degree granting programs.
``(5) Support of faculty exchanges, faculty development,
faculty research, curriculum development, and academic
instruction.
``(6) Creating or improving facilities for Internet or
other distance learning academic instruction capabilities,
including purchase or rental of telecommunications technology
equipment or services.
``(7) Collaboration with other institutions of higher
education to expand postbaccalaureate certificate and degree
offerings.
``(8) Other activities proposed in the application
submitted pursuant to section 514 that--
``(A) contribute to carrying out the purposes of this part;
and
``(B) are approved by the Secretary as part of the review
and acceptance of such application.
``SEC. 514. APPLICATION AND DURATION.
``(a) Application.--Any eligible institution may apply for
a grant under this part by submitting an application to the
Secretary at such time and in such manner as determined by
the Secretary. Such application shall demonstrate how the
grant funds will be used to improve postbaccalaureate
education opportunities for Hispanic and low-income students
and will lead to such students' greater financial
independence.
``(b) Duration.--Grants under this part shall be awarded
for a period not to exceed 5 years.
``(c) Limitation.--The Secretary may not award more than 1
grant under this part in any fiscal year to any Hispanic-
serving institution.''.
(b) Cooperative Arrangements.--Section 524(a) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (as redesignated by subsection (a)(2))
is amended by inserting ``and section 513'' after ``section
503''.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 528(a) of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (as redesignated by subsection
(a)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Authorizations.--
``(1) Part a.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out part A of this title $175,000,000 for fiscal year
2006 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 4
succeeding fiscal years.
``(2) Part b.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out part B of this title $125,000,000 for fiscal year
2006 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 4
succeeding fiscal years.''.
(d) Conforming Amendments.--Title V of the Higher Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 502--
(A) in subsection (a)(2)(A)(ii), by striking ``section
512(b)'' and inserting ``section 522(b)''; and
(B) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``section 512(a)''
and inserting ``section 522(a)'';
(2) in section 521(c)(6) (as redesignated by subsection
(a)(2)), by striking ``section 516'' and inserting ``section
526''; and
(3) in section 526 (as redesignated by subsection (a)(2)),
by striking ``section 518'' and inserting ``section 528''.
TITLE II--REDUCING REGULATORY BARRIERS FOR HISPANIC-SERVING
INSTITUTIONS
SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS.
Section 502(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1101a(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (5)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``; and'' and
inserting a period; and
(C) by striking subparagraph (C); and
(2) by striking paragraph (7).
SEC. 202. AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.
Section 503(b)(7) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1101b(b)(7)) is amended to read as follows:
``(7) Articulation agreements and student support programs
designed to facilitate the transfer from 2-year to 4-year
institutions.''.
SEC. 203. ELIMINATION OF WAIT-OUT PERIOD.
Section 504(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1101c(a)) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Award Period.--The Secretary may award a grant to a
Hispanic-serving institution under this title for 5 years.''.
SEC. 204. APPLICATION PRIORITY.
Section 521(d) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (as
redesignated by section 101(a)(2)) is amended by striking
``(from funds other than funds provided under this title)''.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that
will amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to revise provisions for
Hispanic-serving institutions, HSIs, under Title V, Developing
Institutions. The changes will expand opportunities in postgraduate
education, an essential part of our economy that enables our workforce
to maintain the knowledge that keeps our nation at the forefront of
science and technology.
The bill will establish a program of competitive grants for HSIs that
offer post-baccalaureate certifications or degrees. Grants will support
graduate fellowships, services for students, facilities improvement and
faculty development, among other things. It authorizes $125 million in
grants for fiscal year 2006, and will reduce red tape by eliminating
the requirement that an HSI certify half of its students are low-
income, thus making it easier for students to transfer from two to four
year colleges.
According to the 2000 Census, Hispanics represent the nation's
largest minority population. Unfortunately, too few graduate from high
school or college, despite being the fastest-growing ethnicity in that
age group. We need more resources to support Hispanic educational
opportunities. Hispanic-Serving Institutions are currently educating 51
percent of the 457,000 Hispanic higher education students in the United
States. Although HSIs account for 5 percent of all institutions of
higher education, almost one-half of the 1.5 million Hispanic students
currently in college programs attend them.
Between 1991 and 2000, the number of Hispanics earning master's
degrees grew 136 percent and the number of doctor's degrees grew 85
percent. Our Nation's economic strength and prosperity will depend on
the knowledge, skills, and leadership of a population that already
makes up one of three new workers joining the U.S. labor force today.
As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have been
committed to increasing federal support of HSIs. Since 1995, Title V
funding has increased from $12 million to $95 million in fiscal year
2005. I believe this is an important investment to ensure our nation's
youngest and largest ethnic population has access to the educational
opportunities needed to excel.
Because I believe the success of Hispanic students will play a
critical role in determining this country's future, I am proud to offer
this bill that will improve options for graduate and postgraduate
study, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Byrd, Mr.
Rockefeller, Mr. Cochran, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Bayh, and Mr.
Sarbanes):
S. 358. A bill to maintain and expand the steel import licensing and
monitoring program; to the Committee on Finance
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 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. 358
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MAINTENANCE AND EXPANSION OF STEEL IMPORT
LICENSING AND MONITORING PROGRAM.
(a) Maintenance of Program.--The steel import licensing and
monitoring program established by the Secretary of the
Treasury
[[Page S1288]]
and the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to the Memorandum
signed by the President on March 5, 2002 (67 Fed. Reg. 10593
through 10597) (pursuant to the authority of the President
under section 203(g) of the Trade Act of 1974), shall,
notwithstanding any other action taken by the President under
section 203 of the Trade Act of 1974 concerning the steel
products described in the Memorandum, remain in effect and be
established by the Secretary of Commerce as a permanent
program.
(b) Expansion of Program.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out the program in accordance
with subsection (a), the Secretary of the Treasury and the
Secretary of Commerce shall expand the program to include all
iron and steel, and all articles of iron or steel, described
in paragraph (2). The import and licensing data made
available to the public as part of this program shall be
released based upon classifications at the tenth digit level
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.
(2) Iron and steel described.--The iron and steel, and
articles of iron or steel, referred to in subparagraph (A)
are the iron and steel, and articles of iron or steel,
contained in the following headings and subheadings of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States:
(A) Each of the headings 7206 through 7229 (relating to
mill products).
(B) Each of the headings 7301 through 7307 (relating to
rails, structurals, pipe and tubes, and fittings and
flanges).
(C) Heading 7308 (relating to fabricated structurals).
(D) Subheading 7310.10.00 (relating to barrels and drums).
(E) Heading 7312 (relating to strand and rope).
(F) Heading 7313.00.00 (relating to barbed and fence wire).
(G) Headings 7314, 7315, and 7317.00 (relating to
fabricated wire).
(H) Heading 7318 (relating to industrial fasteners).
(I) Heading 7326 (relating to fence posts).
(c) Additional Authority.--The Secretary of the Treasury
and the Secretary of Commerce are hereby authorized and
directed to take such actions as are necessary--
(1) to maintain the program described in subsection (a) in
accordance with such subsection; and
(2) to expand, as necessary and appropriate, such program
in accordance with subsection (b).
______
By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Specter,
Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Lugar, Mr.
Durbin, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Kerry, Mr. McCain, Mr. Dodd, Mr.
Cochran, Mr. Domenici, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Lieberman,
Mr. Burns, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Hatch, Mr.
Akaka, Mr. Lott, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Brownback, Mr.
Levin, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Salazar, Mr.
Chafee, and Mrs. Murray):
S. 359. A bill to provide for the adjustment of status of certain
foreign agricultural workers, to amend the Immigration and Nationality
Act to reform the H-2A worker program under that Act, to provide a
stable, legal agricultural workforce, to extend basic legal protections
and better working conditions to more workers, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have introduced what I believe to be a
very important piece of legislation that the Senate will consider this
year, dealing with an issue that is certainly on the minds of many
Americans and No. 1 on the minds of some Americans. It is on the
question of immigration reform and dealing with it in an appropriate
fashion, to create a transparency in the process, and to begin to end
and identify the 8 million to 12 million undocumented foreign nationals
currently in our country.
Over the last 5 years, I have worked in a bipartisan way with many of
my colleagues, and literally hundreds of organizations around the
country, in focusing on a specific area of immigration, and that is the
H-2A area, or those who work in agricultural employment.
What we have discovered over the course of time is a broken system,
which in large part now allows the possibility of well over a million
foreign nationals working illegally in this country, but working in an
economy where they are desperately needed to bring the food products
from our fields, to process those products and put them on the shelves
of the American consuming public. As a result of that great concern, I,
working with my colleague Senator Ted Kennedy in the Senate, with
Congressman Howard Berman and Congressman Chris Cannon over in the
House for some time, have produced legislation that brings all sides of
this very diverse and oftentimes very contentious issue together, to
therefore be able to offer tonight a piece of legislation that has at
this moment nearly 40 Members of the Senate, Democrats and Republicans,
supporting it; whereas last year, identical legislation had over 63
Senators, and we believe we will have that same support again this
year.
Americans, after 9/11, cried out to the Congress and to our
Government, saying: What is wrong? Why were people allowed to come to
our country who then turned on us to kill our citizens? Why did we let
that happen?
Well, we learned that the immigration policies of our country were
largely broken and that the Congress, over years and years, had turned
its back on the issue, either not funding immigration appropriately or
not enforcing the laws already on the books regarding immigration.
As a result of that, it is now estimated that there are between 8
million to 12 million foreign nationals living in this country, the
vast majority of them working and living in law-abiding, peaceful ways,
but working here to better themselves and their families for their own
human well-being. We did find out there were a few who were here to do
evil things to Americans.
In the legislation I bring to the floor tonight, in legislation we
call the Agricultural Job Opportunity Benefit and Security Act, I focus
rather narrowly on what is believed to be about 1.6 million of the
total number, to recognize that clearly the vast majority of them are
here for peaceful purposes, to better themselves and their families,
and, in the meantime, cause American agriculture to work as effectively
and efficiently as it does.
Oftentimes, these men and women do work that American citizens do not
want to do or will not do--toiling in the hot fields of American
agriculture day in and day out, dirty, tough work, but seeing it as an
opportunity for themselves and an opportunity for their children to
have a better life.
In so failing to recognize that need, we have oftentimes caused them
to live in the back alleys and the shadows of America in an illegal
status, but we still rely heavily on them for the services they
provide.
Americans need and expect a stable, predictable, legal workforce in
American agriculture, and consumers in our country deserve a safe,
stable, domestic food supply. Willing American workers deserve a system
that puts them first in line for the jobs that are available with a
fair market wage, and our legislation does that. All workers deserve
decent treatment and protection of basic rights under the law, and our
legislation does that. American citizens and taxpayers deserve secure
borders, a safe homeland, and a government that works, and our
legislation helps accomplish those three very important goals.
Yet we are threatened on all fronts because of a growing shortage now
of legal workers in American agriculture. Last year, in 2 of the 12
months, we were net importers of agricultural food products. For the
first time in the history of our country that happened. I grew up being
told--and most of us did--that because of our great American
agriculture always being able to feed us, we were a secure, safe
nation, and our food supply was such that we would never be dependent
upon foreign interests to feed the American consumer.
Last year it happened 2 out of 12 months that we grew dependent. This
year, USDA tells us that we will break even at about 50-50. There will
be no surplus agriculture trade. We will be importing as much as we are
exporting, and that will be a historic first for our Nation.
What it tells me, as someone who grew up in American agriculture, is
that agriculture as an economy is becoming increasingly fragile. It no
longer has the strength or the dynamics it once had. It grows
increasingly dependent on the high cost of inputs--energy, equipment,
other supplies necessary to produce the bounty of the American farm
field. But one of those key inputs is labor--labor that is stable,
labor that you know will be there, and, most importantly, labor that
can get the job done at the right time,
[[Page S1289]]
when the crop in the field is ripe and ready to harvest.
That labor pool is largely undocumented today. It is estimated that
anywhere from 72 to 75 percent of those who work in American
agriculture today are undocumented foreign nationals; in other words,
illegal. And yet they toil in the fields, they pick our food, they help
prepare it through the processing plants to get it to the consumer's
shelf.
If in our effort to protect our borders and to create a law
enforcement community that can apprehend a person who has entered this
country illegally, if all of that happens and we do not create a system
that stabilizes and provides a legal foreign national workforce, we
could literally collapse American agriculture.
We are working at trying to protect our borders. We have invested
heavily in it for the last good number of years. We just passed an
intelligence reform bill in the latter part of the last session of the
108th Congress dealing closely with our borders. Members on the House
side are ready to introduce new forms of legislation to tighten up and
allow the driver's license to become a more secure legal
documentation--an American citizen versus one who would not be.
I support nearly all of those things because they are the right thing
to do for America to reclaim herself and to control her borders. But at
the same time, there is a legitimate and responsible need to recognize
the importance--the critical importance--of foreign nationals in our
workforce helping to provide for our economy.
In the late nineties, we were near 100-percent employment in our
country. Anyone who wanted to work could work and was working. Those
who were not probably either did not want to or could not. Yet during
that time, we were still employing an estimated 8 million foreign
nationals in our country. That is not a negative, that is the character
of a great country. That is the character of a great economy and a
strong economy.
It is also that diversity that has produced the great American way,
the idea of the American dream, the phenomenal hybrid vigor of a
diverse character that is this country and has always been. And
American agriculture has been a part of that. Those who toil in
American agriculture have been a big part of that.
What we do today by this legislation is reach out and attempt to
recognize those who are here in an undocumented way and cause them to
come forward to be recognized, to have a background check done, to make
sure they are not law violators or felons who are here for some other
purpose. If they have been here and worked a period of 100 days since
January 1, 2005, we will provide for them a temporary green card and
then allow them to work and earn the right for permanent work status in
our country.
To me, that seems fair and responsible. All of the parties involved
in American agriculture today from the workforce to the producer
themselves, they, too, agree that is a fair and responsible fashion. It
is not giving anything away. It is attempting to correct a problem. It
is doing the background checks. It is making sure we have a legal and
legitimate workforce so that as we plug all of these holes and change
the character of a broken immigration law, we do so without collapsing
the very economy that feeds our country, recognizing that they became
too dependent as agricultural producers on a workforce that was not
legal.
So we do not just wipe the workforce away. We attempt to identify it,
shape it, and cause it to be legal and do so in a responsible fashion.
That is clearly what our legislation does. That is why 63 Senators
supported it last year, and well over 100 in the House were cosponsors
of it. We are working hard at this very moment to pass this
legislation, to get it to the President's desk, and recognize that it
may be a template, it may be a pilot for others to look at for a more
comprehensive approach toward immigration reform.
There is no question in my mind that our immigration laws are broken,
and I am not going to stand here tonight and suggest I have the wisdom
to fix it all. But I and others and hundreds of organizations and
interest groups from around this country have spent the last 5 years
trying to solve this problem.
When we started, many of us were 180 degrees apart. Slowly but surely
we came together out of need, the clear recognition of the necessity of
providing a legal, recognizable, and stable workforce for American
agriculture.
I do not think any citizen in our country would sleep well if they
knew that a majority of our foodstuffs were imported, if they knew that
we were dependent upon foreign nations and their producers for our food
supply.
I think they would grow frustrated over the risk that would be at
hand there, the stability, the availability, the safety issue. Many
have suggested that if we are going to have a terrorist attack again
some day, one of the approaches terrorists might use would be to attack
our food supply.
If we control our workforce, if we produce it here, the possibility
of that happening is considerably lessened. That goes right back to the
old historic belief that a nation that can feed itself and its people
is a nation that is inherently stable, and without question the produce
of the American farm has allowed us to be that generation after
generation, war after war.
We are now at a very fine point and balance in our Nation's history
where this year we will zero out that old historic belief of stability.
We will be importing as much as we are exporting. So American
agriculture deserves our attention.
The people who labor there deserve our attention and respect. They
deserve to be treated fairly as we would expect all people in our
country to be, to have proper conditions and proper wages and to be
recognized for the quality of work they do, instead of simply shoving
them into the shadows in the back streets of America and denying they
are there but knowing that we need them. That is an interesting
contradiction in the current immigration laws in our country and
America knows it and has reacted accordingly.
It is why our President says immigration reform is critical and
necessary and has proposed ways to accomplish it. It is why it is in
the top list of issues and concerns that most Americans hold about what
Government ought to be doing to create a safer, stronger America, from
controlling our borders to an effective law enforcement system, to
assuring that we know those who are within our borders and why they are
here and what their intent is. That is all part of the agricultural
jobs bill we introduce tonight, the Agricultural Job Opportunity
Benefit and Security Act of 2005.
I am proud that 40 Senators, nearly 50-50 in partisan split, have
already endorsed this legislation. We will strive for that number of
60-plus again. In doing so, I will ask my colleagues to help us bring
this bill to the floor very early in this session, to debate it, to
pass it out, to work with our House colleagues and to put it on the
President's desk. I believe it is a positive and necessary start in
marching down the road toward comprehensive immigration reform.
To do anything less than we are proposing is once again to do the
very thing we have done for well over a decade, and that is to turn our
back on the problem and the issue, to know it is there but to deny it
exists, and then to have a broken system produce the crisis that
occurred on 9/11.
We are a better country than that, and this Senate is a more
responsible legislative body than that.
So tonight I bring to my colleagues what I think is a major first
step in immigration reform necessary and important to protecting our
borders, to making sure we are secure at home, to stabilizing a food
supply, to assuring that American agriculture has a predictable, stable
workforce, and to say to all at hand that those who come here to toil,
in the benefit of the American economy, will be treated in a fair,
just, and responsible way.
I yield the floor.
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Kerry):
S. 360. A bill to amend the Coastal Zone Management Act; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coastal Zone
Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2005. I am pleased to have worked
with my cosponsor, Senator Kerry, in developing this bill, which will
enable our
[[Page S1290]]
Nation to improve the way we manage our valuable, yet vulnerable,
coastal resources.
More than three decades ago, Congress enacted the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972, or CZMA, in response to concerns over growing
threats to our Nation's coastal environments and resources. While this
act has been instrumental in facilitating better coastal planning and
management, the September 2004 Final Report of the U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy reminded us that the pressures facing our coastal regions
have greatly increased since the CZMA was enacted.
America's coastal zone comprises only 17 percent of the contiguous
U.S. land area, yet nearly 53 percent of all Americans live in these
coastal areas. Attracted by economic opportunity as well as beaches and
other recreational amenities, more than 3,600 people are moving to this
area each year. This relatively small portion of our country supports
approximately 361 sea ports, including most of our largest cities. At
the same time, it provides critical habitat for a variety of plants and
animals, ranging from rare microscopic organisms to commercially
valuable fish stocks.
The CZMA established a unique State-Federal framework for
facilitating sound coastal planning, and any amendments to this act
must uphold and strengthen this arrangement. Under the authorities in
the CZMA, coastal States can elect to participate in a voluntary
Federal Coastal Zone Management Program. The 34 participating States
and territories create individualized coastal zone management plans,
taking their State's specific needs and problems into account, and then
receive Federal matching funds to help implement their plans. This
systems respects states' rights while empowering them to better
identify and meet their environmental, social, and economic goals for
their coastal areas. As a result of this program's success, more than
99.9 percent of the United States 95,376 shoreline miles are managed
under this system.
Even though our coastal States and territories have benefitted from
this vital CZMA program, our coastal areas continue to face increasing
demands to expand working waterfronts as well as increasing rates of
nonpoint source water pollution. These persistent threats have outpaced
the ability of many States to keep up with coastal zone conservation.
Although the States are currently taking action to address this problem
under existing authorities, the Coastal Zone Enhancement
Reauthorization of 2005 would encourage them to take additional
voluntary steps to combat these problems through the Coastal Community
Program.
The coastal community initiative would provide participating States
with the funding and flexibility necessary to deal with a broad array
of specific nonpoint source pollution problems.
The State of Maine, like many coastal States, is working to reduce
nonpoint source pollution programs, and its efforts have led to the
reopening of hundreds of acres of shellfish beds and the restoration of
fish nursery areas. Even with these successes, Maine needs to do more
and is looking forward to this new opportunity.
The Coastal Community Program authorized in this bill would also aide
States in developing and implementing creative, community-based
initiatives to deal with problems other than nonpoint source pollution.
It would increase Federal and State support of local grassroots
programs that target coastal environmental issues, such as the impact
of development and sprawl on coastal resources and activities.
The bill I offer today would reauthorize the CZMA and make a number
of improvements to strengthen our Nation's coastal management system.
The Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization of 2005 significantly
increases the authorization levels for the Coastal Zone Management
Program, enabling States to better achieve their coastal management
goals. The bill authorizes $137.5 million for fiscal year 2006 and
increases the authorization levels up to $160,000,000 for fiscal year
2010. This increase in funding would enable the States' coastal
programs to achieve their full potential.
Within these authorized funding levels, this bill would increase
authorization for the National Estuarine Research Reserve System to $18
million in fiscal year 2006 with an additional $1 million increase each
year through fiscal year 2010. This system is a network of reserves
around the country that support coastal science, research, education
and conservation, and they are operated as a cooperative Federal-State
partnership. Additional authorizations, including funds to support
construction at designated reserve sites, will help strengthen this
nationwide program which has not received increased funding
commensurate with the addition of new reserves.
In this bill, we have tried to rectify a very serious problem facing
the Coastal Zone Management Program. The funding for this program is
based on administrative grants, under section 306 of the CZMA, in which
the amount of funding for each State is determined by a formula that
takes into account both the length of the coastline and population of
each State. However, since 1992, the Appropriations Committee has
imposed a million a $2 million cap per State on administrative grants
in an attempt to treat all participating States equally.
Even while overall program funding has increased in recent years,
this arbitrary cap has remained in place, and by fiscal year 2000, 13
States had reached it. These 13 States account for 83 percent of our
Nation's coastline and 76 percent of our coastal population. Despite
appropriators' desire for equal treatment, it is simply not equitable
to have the 13 States with the largest coastlines and populations stuck
at a $2 million cap, despite overall program funding increases. While
smaller States have enjoyed additional programmatic success due to an
influx of funding, progress in some of the larger States--with some of
the most pressing coastal management problems--has stagnated.
This bill contains new language that would direct the Secretary of
Commerce to ensure equitable increases or decreases in annual
administrative grant funding for each State. It further 2 requires that
States should not experience a decrease in base program funds in any
year when the overall appropriations increase. I must thank my former
colleague, Senator Hollings, for his many years of effort and
cooperation in helping us develop this new grant funding allocation
language. His leadership and commitment to all ocean and coastal
conservation matters continues to guide our efforts today.
The State-Federal Coastal Zone Management Program has a long record
of helping States achieve their coastal area management goals, and
having clean, safe, and productive coastlines ultimately serves the
best interest of our Nation. This program enjoys widespread support
among coastal States, as demonstrated by the many Commerce Committee
members who have worked with me to strengthen this program over the
past several years.
I am pleased to introduce this legislation to provide our coastal
States with the funding and management frameworks necessary to meet the
ever-increasing conservation and development challenges facing our
coastal communities, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Coastal Zone
Enhancement Reauthorization of 2005 be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 360
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 ``Coastal Zone Enhancement
Reauthorization Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT.
Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this
Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an
amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the
reference shall be considered to be made to a section or
other provision of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
(16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.).
SEC. 3. FINDINGS.
Section 302 (16 U.S.C. 1451) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (a) through (m) as
paragraphs (1) through (13);
(2) by inserting ``ports,'' in paragraph (3) (as so
redesignated) after ``fossil fuels,'';
(3) by inserting ``including coastal waters and wetlands,''
in paragraph (4) (as so redesignated) after ``zone,'';
(4) by striking ``therein,'' in paragraph (4) (as so
redesignated) and inserting ``dependent on that habitat,'';
[[Page S1291]]
(5) by striking ``well-being'' in paragraph (5) (as so
redesignated) and inserting ``quality of life'';
(6) by striking paragraph (11) (as so redesignated) and
inserting the following:
``(11) Land and water uses in the coastal zone and coastal
watersheds may significantly affect the quality of coastal
waters and habitats, and efforts to control coastal water
pollution from activities in these areas must be improved.'';
and
(7) by adding at the end thereof the following:
``(14) There is a need to enhance cooperation and
coordination among states and local communities, to encourage
local community-based solutions that address the impacts and
pressures on coastal resources and on public facilities and
public service caused by continued coastal demands, and to
increase state and local capacity to identify public
infrastructure and open space needs and develop and implement
plans which provide for sustainable growth, resource
protection and community revitalization.''.
SEC. 4. POLICY.
Section 303 (16 U.S.C. 1452) is amended--
(1) by striking ``the states'' in paragraph (2) and
inserting ``state and local governments'';
(2) by striking ``waters,'' each place it appears in
paragraph (2)(C) and inserting ``waters and habitats,'';
(3) by striking ``agencies and state and wildlife agencies;
and'' in paragraph (2)(J) and inserting ``and wildlife
management; and'';
(4) by inserting ``other countries,'' after ``agencies,''
in paragraph (5);
(5) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5);
(6) by striking ``zone.'' in paragraph (6) and inserting
``zone;''; and
(7) by adding at the end thereof the following:
``(7) to create and use a National Estuarine Research
Reserve System as a Federal, state, and community partnership
to support and enhance coastal management and stewardship;
and
``(8) to encourage the development, application, and
transfer of innovative coastal and estuarine environmental
technologies and techniques for the long-term conservation of
coastal ecosystems.''.
SEC. 5. CHANGES IN DEFINITIONS.
Section 304 (16 U.S.C. 1453) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and the Trust Territories of the Pacific
Islands,'' in paragraph (4);
(2) by striking paragraph (8) and inserting the following:
``(8) The term `estuarine reserve' means a coastal
protected area which may include any part or all of an
estuary and any island, transitional area, and upland in,
adjoining, or adjacent to the estuary, and which constitutes
to the extent feasible a natural unit, established to provide
long-term opportunities for conducting scientific studies and
educational and training programs that improve the
understanding, stewardship, and management of estuaries.'';
and
(3) by adding at the end thereof the following:
``(19) The term `coastal nonpoint pollution control
strategies and measures' means strategies and measures
included as part of the coastal nonpoint pollution control
program under section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 1455b).
``(20) The term `qualified local entity' means--
``(A) any local government;
``(B) any areawide agency referred to in section 204(a)(1)
of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act
of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 3334 (a)(1));
``(C) any regional agency;
``(D) any interstate agency;
``(E) any nonprofit organization; or
``(F) any reserve established under section 315.''.
SEC. 6. REAUTHORIZATION OF MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
GRANTS.
Section 305 (16 U.S.C. 1454) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 305. MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT GRANTS.
``(a) States Without Programs.--In fiscal years 2006 and
2007, the Secretary may make a grant annually to any coastal
state without an approved program if the coastal state
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the
grant will be used to develop a management program consistent
with the requirements set forth in section 306. The amount of
any such grant shall not exceed $200,000 in any fiscal year,
and shall require State matching funds according to a 4-to-1
ratio of Federal-to-State contributions. After an initial
grant is made to a coastal state under this subsection, no
subsequent grant may be made to that coastal state under this
subsection unless the Secretary finds that the coastal state
is satisfactorily developing its management program. No
coastal state is eligible to receive more than 4 grants under
this subsection.
``(b) Submittal of Program for Approval.--A coastal state
that has completed the development of its management program
shall submit the program to the Secretary for review and
approval under section 306.''.
SEC. 7. ADMINISTRATIVE GRANTS.
(a) Purposes.--Section 306(a) (16 U.S.C. 1455(a)) is
amended by inserting ``including developing and implementing
coastal nonpoint pollution control program components,''
after ``program,''.
(b) Equitable Allocation of Funding.--Section 306(c) (16
U.S.C. 1455(c)) is amended by adding at the end thereof ``In
promoting equity, the Secretary shall consider the overall
change in grant funding under this section from the preceding
fiscal year and minimize the relative increases or decreases
among all the eligible States. The Secretary shall ensure
that each eligible State receives increased funding under
this section in any fiscal year for which the total amount
appropriated to carry out this section is greater than the
total amount appropriated to carry out this section for the
preceding fiscal year.
(c) Acquisition Criteria.--Section 306(d)(10)(B) (16 U.S.C.
1455(d)(10)(B)) is amended by striking ``less than fee
simple'' and inserting ``other''.
SEC. 8. COASTAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
Section 306A (16 U.S.C. 1455a) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``or other important coastal habitats'' in
subsection (b)(1)(A) after ``306(d)(9)'';
(2) by inserting ``or historic'' in subsection (b)(2) after
``urban'';
(3) by adding at the end of subsection (b) the following:
``(5) The coordination and implementation of approved
coastal nonpoint pollution control plans.
``(6) The preservation, restoration, enhancement or
creation of coastal habitats.'';
(4) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon in subsection
(c)(2)(D);
(5) by striking ``section.'' in subsection (c)(2)(E) and
inserting ``section;'';
(6) by adding at the end of subsection (c)(2) the
following:
``(F) work, resources, or technical support necessary to
preserve, restore, enhance, or create coastal habitats; and
``(G) the coordination and implementation of approved
coastal nonpoint pollution control plans.''; and
(7) by striking subsections (d), (e), and (f) and inserting
after subsection (c) the following:
``(d) Source of Federal Grants; State Matching
Contributions.--
``(1) In general.--If a coastal state chooses to fund a
project under this section, then--
``(A) it shall submit to the Secretary a combined
application for grants under this section and section 306;
``(B) it shall match the combined amount of such grants in
the ratio required by section 306(a) for grants under that
section; and
``(C) the Federal funding for the project shall be a
portion of that state's annual allocation under section
306(a).
``(2) Use of funds.--Grants provided under this section may
be used to pay a coastal state's share of costs required
under any other Federal program that is consistent with the
purposes of this section.
``(e) Allocation of Grants to Qualified Local Entity.--With
the approval of the Secretary, the eligible coastal state may
allocate to a qualified local entity a portion of any grant
made under this section for the purpose of carrying out this
section; except that such an allocation shall not relieve
that state of the responsibility for ensuring that any funds
so allocated are applied in furtherance of the state's
approved management program.
``(f) Assistance.--The Secretary shall assist eligible
coastal states in identifying and obtaining from other
Federal agencies technical and financial assistance in
achieving the objectives set forth in subsection (b).''.
SEC. 9. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT FUND.
(a) Treatment of Loan Repayments.--Section 308(a)(2) (16
U.S.C. 1456a(a)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Loan repayments made under this subsection--
``(A) shall be retained by the Secretary and deposited into
the Coastal Zone Management Fund established under subsection
(b); and
``(B) subject to amounts provided in Appropriations Acts,
shall be available to the Secretary for purposes of this
title and transferred to the Operations, Research, and
Facilities account of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration to offset the costs of implementing this
title.''.
(b) Use of Amounts in Fund.--Section 308(b) (16 U.S.C.
1456a(b)) is amended by striking paragraphs (2) and (3) and
inserting the following:
``(2) Subject to Appropriation Acts, amounts in the Fund
shall be available to the Secretary to carry out the
provisions of this Act.''.
SEC. 10. COASTAL ZONE ENHANCEMENT GRANTS.
Section 309 (16 U.S.C. 1456b) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a)(1) and inserting the
following:
``(1) Protection, restoration, enhancement, or creation of
coastal habitats, including wetlands, coral reefs, marshes,
and barrier islands.'';
(2) by inserting ``and removal'' after ``entry'' in
subsection (a)(4);
(3) by striking ``on various individual uses or activities
on resources, such as coastal wetlands and fishery
resources.'' in subsection (a)(5) and inserting ``of various
individual uses or activities on coastal waters, habitats,
and resources, including sources of polluted runoff.'';
(4) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following:
``(10) Development and enhancement of coastal nonpoint
pollution control program components, including the
satisfaction of conditions placed on such programs as part of
the Secretary's approval of the programs.
[[Page S1292]]
``(11) Significant emerging coastal issues as identified by
coastal states, in consultation with the Secretary and
qualified local entities.'';
(5) by striking ``proposals, taking into account the
criteria established by the Secretary under subsection (d).''
in subsection (c) and inserting ``proposals.'';
(6) by striking subsection (d) and redesignating subsection
(e) as subsection (d);
(7) by striking ``section, up to a maximum of $10,000,000
annually'' in subsection (f) and inserting ``section.''; and
(8) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections
(e) and (f), respectively.
SEC. 11. COASTAL COMMUNITY PROGRAM.
The Act is amended by inserting after section 309 the
following:
``SEC. 309A. COASTAL COMMUNITY PROGRAM.
``(a) Coastal Community Grants.--The Secretary may make
grants to any coastal state that is eligible under subsection
(b)--
``(1) to assist coastal communities in assessing and
managing growth, public infrastructure, and open space needs
in order to provide for sustainable growth, resource
protection and community revitalization;
``(2) to provide management-oriented research and technical
assistance in developing and implementing community-based
growth management and resource protection strategies in
qualified local entities;
``(3) to fund demonstration projects which have high
potential for improving coastal zone management at the local
level;
``(4) to assist in the adoption of plans, strategies,
policies, or procedures to support local community-based
environmentally-protective solutions to the impacts and
pressures on coastal uses and resources caused by development
and sprawl that will--
``(A) revitalize previously developed areas;
``(B) undertake conservation activities and projects in
undeveloped and environmentally sensitive areas;
``(C) emphasize water-dependent uses; and
``(D) protect coastal waters and habitats; and
``(5) to assist coastal communities to coordinate and
implement approved coastal nonpoint pollution control
strategies and measures that reduce the causes and impacts of
polluted runoff on coastal waters and habitats.''.
``(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible for a grant under this
section for a fiscal year, a coastal state shall--
``(1) have a management program approved under section 306;
and
``(2) in the judgment of the Secretary, be making
satisfactory progress in activities designed to result in
significant improvement in achieving the coastal management
objectives specified in section 303(2)(A) through (K).
``(c) Allocations; Source of Federal Grants; State Matching
Contributions.--
``(1) Allocation.--Grants under this section shall be
allocated to coastal states as provided in section 306(c).
``(2) Application; matching.--If a coastal state chooses to
fund a project under this section, then--
``(A) it shall submit to the Secretary a combined
application for grants under this section and section 306;
and
``(B) it shall match the amount of the grant under this
section on the basis of a total contribution of section 306,
306A, and this section so that, in aggregate, the match is
1:1.
``(d) Allocation of Grants to Qualified Local Entity.--
``(1) In general.--With the approval of the Secretary, the
eligible coastal state may allocate to a qualified local
entity amounts received by the state under this section.
``(2) Assurances.--A coastal state shall ensure that
amounts allocated by the state under paragraph (1) are used
by the qualified local entity in furtherance of the state's
approved management program, specifically furtherance of the
coastal management objectives specified in section 303(2).
``(e) Assistance.--The Secretary shall assist eligible
coastal states and qualified local entities in identifying
and obtaining from other Federal agencies technical and
financial assistance in achieving the objectives set forth in
subsection (a).''.
SEC. 12. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
Section 310(b) (16 U.S.C. 1456c(b)) is amended by adding at
the end thereof the following:
``(4) The Secretary may conduct a program to develop and
apply innovative coastal and estuarine environmental
technology and methodology through a cooperative program. The
Secretary may make extramural grants in carrying out the
purpose of this subsection.''.
SEC. 13. PERFORMANCE REVIEW.
Section 312(a) (16 U.S.C. 1458(a)) is amended by inserting
``coordinated with National Estuarine Research Reserves in
the state'' after ``303(2)(A) through (K),''.
SEC. 14. WALTER B. JONES AWARDS.
Section 314 (16 U.S.C. 1460) is amended--
(1) by striking ``shall, using sums in the Coastal Zone
Management Fund established under section 308'' in subsection
(a) and inserting ``may, using sums available under this
Act'';
(2) by striking ``field.'' in subsection (a) and inserting
the following: ``field of coastal zone management. These
awards, to be known as the `Walter B. Jones Awards', may
include--
``(1) cash awards in an amount not to exceed $5,000 each;
``(2) research grants; and
``(3) public ceremonies to acknowledge such awards.'';
(3) by striking ``shall elect annually--'' in subsection
(b) and inserting ``may select annually if funds are
available under subsection (a)--''; and
(4) by striking subsection (e).
SEC. 15. NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE SYSTEM.
(a) Section 315(a) (16 U.S.C. 1461(a)) is amended by
striking ``consists of--'' and inserting ``is a network of
areas protected by Federal, state, and community partnerships
which promotes informed management of the Nation's estuarine
and coastal areas through interconnected programs in resource
stewardship, education and training, and scientific
understanding consisting of--''.
(b) Section 315(b)(2)(C) (16 U.S.C. 1461(b)(2)(C)) is
amended by striking ``public education and interpretation;
and''; and inserting ``education, interpretation, training,
and demonstration projects; and''.
(c) Section 315(c) (16 U.S.C. 1461(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Research'' in the subsection caption and
inserting ``Research, Education, and Resource Stewardship'';
(2) by striking ``conduct of research'' and inserting
``conduct of research, education, and resource stewardship'';
(3) by striking ``coordinated research'' in paragraph (1))
and inserting ``coordinated research, education, and resource
stewardship'';
(4) by striking ``research'' before ``principles'' in
paragraph (2);
(5) by striking ``research programs'' in paragraph (2) and
inserting ``research, education, and resource stewardship
programs'';
(6) by striking ``research'' before ``methodologies'' in
paragraph (3);
(7) by striking ``data,'' in paragraph (3) and inserting
``information,'';
(8) by striking ``research'' before ``results'' in
paragraph (3);
(9) by striking ``research purposes;'' in paragraph (3) and
inserting ``research, education, and resource stewardship
purposes;'';
(10) by striking ``research efforts'' in paragraph (4) and
inserting ``research, education, and resource stewardship
efforts'';
(11) by striking ``research'' in paragraph (5) and
inserting ``research, education, and resource stewardship'';
and
(12) by striking ``research'' in the last sentence.
(d) Section 315(d) (16 U.S.C. 1461(d)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Estuarine Research.--'' in the subsection
caption and inserting ``Estuarine Research, Education, and
Resource Stewardship.--'';
(2) by striking ``research purposes'' and inserting
``research, education, and resource stewardship purposes'';
(3) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) giving reasonable priority to research, education,
and stewardship activities that use the System in conducting
or supporting activities relating to estuaries; and'';
(4) by striking ``research.'' in paragraph (2) and
inserting ``research, education, and resource stewardship
activities.''; and
(5) by adding at the end thereof the following:
``(3) establishing partnerships with other Federal and
state estuarine management programs to coordinate and
collaborate on estuarine research.''.
(e) Section 315(e) (16 U.S.C. 1461(e)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``reserve,'' in paragraph (1)(A)(i) and
inserting ``reserve; and'';
(2) by striking ``and constructing appropriate reserve
facilities, or'' in paragraph (1)(A)(ii) and inserting
``including resource stewardship activities and constructing
reserve facilities; and'';
(3) by striking paragraph (1)(A)(iii);
(4) by striking paragraph (1)(B) and inserting the
following:
``(B) to any coastal state or public or private person for
purposes of--
``(i) supporting research and monitoring associated with a
national estuarine reserve that are consistent with the
research guidelines developed under subsection (c); or
``(ii) conducting educational, interpretive, or training
activities for a national estuarine reserve that are
consistent with the education guidelines developed under
subsection (c).'';
(5) by striking ``therein or $5,000,000, whichever amount
is less.'' in paragraph (3)(A) and inserting ``therein. Non-
Federal costs associated with the purchase of any lands and
waters, or interests therein, which are incorporated into the
boundaries of a reserve up to 5 years after the costs are
incurred, may be used to match the Federal share.'';
(6) by striking ``and (iii)'' in paragraph (3)(B);
(7) by striking ``paragraph (1)(A)(iii)'' in paragraph
(3)(B) and inserting ``paragraph (1)(B)'';
(8) by striking ``entire System.'' in paragraph (3)(B) and
inserting ``System as a whole.''; and
(9) by adding at the end thereof the following:
``(4) The Secretary may--
``(A) enter into cooperative agreements, financial
agreements, grants, contracts, or other agreements with any
nonprofit organization, authorizing the organization to
solicit donations to carry out the purposes and policies of
this section, other than general administration of reserves
or the System and which are consistent with the purposes and
policies of this section; and
[[Page S1293]]
``(B) accept donations of funds and services for use in
carrying out the purposes and policies of this section, other
than general administration of reserves or the System and
which are consistent with the purposes and policies of this
section.
Donations accepted under this section shall be considered as
a gift or bequest to or for the use of the United States for
the purpose of carrying out this section.''.
(f) Section 315(f)(1) (16 U.S.C. 1461(f)(1)) is amended by
inserting ``coordination with other state programs
established under sections 306 and 309A,'' after
``including''.
SEC. 16. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT REPORTS.
Section 316 (16 U.S.C. 1462) is amended--
(1) by striking ``to the President for transmittal'' in
subsection (a);
(2) by striking ``zone and an evaluation of the
effectiveness of financial assistance under section 308 in
dealing with such consequences;'' and inserting ``zone;'' in
the provision designated as (10) in subsection (a);
(3) by inserting ``education,'' after the ``studies,'' in
the provision designated as (12) in subsection (a);
(4) by striking ``Secretary'' in the first sentence of
subsection (c)(1) and inserting ``Secretary, in consultation
with coastal states, and with the participation of affected
Federal agencies,'';
(5) by striking the second sentence of subsection (c)(1)
and inserting the following: ``The Secretary, in conducting
such a review, shall coordinate with, and obtain the views
of, appropriate Federal agencies.'';
(6) by striking ``shall promptly'' in subsection (c)(2) and
inserting ``shall, within 4 years after the date of enactment
of the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of
2005,''; and
(7) by adding at the end of subsection (c)(2) the
following: ``If sufficient funds and resources are not
available to conduct such a review, the Secretary shall so
notify the Congress.''.
SEC. 17. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 318 (16 U.S.C. 1464) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a)
and inserting the following:
``(1) for grants under sections 306, 306A, and 309--
``(A) $90,500,000 for fiscal year 2006;
``(B) $94,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
``(C) $98,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
``(D) $102,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
``(E) $106,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
``(2) for grants under section 309A--
``(A) $29,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
``(B) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
``(C) $31,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
``(D) $32,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
``(E) $32,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
of which $10,000,000, or 35 percent, whichever is less, shall
be for purposes set forth in section 309A(a)(5);
``(3) for grants under section 315--
``(A) $18,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
``(B) $19,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
``(C) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
``(D) $21,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
``(E) $22,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
``(4) for grants to fund construction projects at estuarine
reserves designated under section 315, $15,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010; and
``(5) for costs associated with administering this title,
$7,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 and such sums as are
necessary for fiscal years 2007-2010.'';
(2) by striking ``306 or 309.'' in subsection (b) and
inserting ``306.'';
(3) by striking ``during the fiscal year, or during the
second fiscal year after the fiscal year, for which'' in
subsection (c) and inserting ``within 3 years from when'';
(4) by striking ``under the section for such reverted
amount was originally made available.'' in subsection (c) and
inserting ``to states under this Act.''; and
(5) by adding at the end thereof the following:
``(d) Purchase of Otherwise Unavailable Federal Products
and Services.--Federal funds allocated under this title may
be used by grantees to purchase Federal products and services
not otherwise available.
``(e) Restriction on Use of Amounts for Program,
Administrative, or Overhead Costs.--Except for funds
appropriated under subsection (a)(5), amounts appropriated
under this section shall be available only for grants to
states and shall not be available for other program,
administrative, or overhead costs of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration or the Department of Commerce.''.
SEC. 18. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that the Undersecretary for
Oceans and Atmosphere should re-evaluate the calculation of
shoreline mileage used in the distribution of funding under
the Coastal Zone Management Program to ensure equitable
treatment of all regions of the coastal zone, including the
Southeastern States and the Great Lakes States.
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Inouye,
and Ms. Collins):
S. 361. A bill to develop and maintain an integrated system of ocean
and coastal observations for the Nation's coasts, oceans and Great
Lakes, improve warnings of tsunamis and other natural hazards, enhance
homeland security, support maritime operations, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Ocean and
Coastal Observation Systems Act of 2005, a bill that would forever
change our understanding of the marine environment.
As our Nation saw with the devastating Indian Ocean tsunami only
weeks ago, the oceans are alive and ever-changing. While our Nation's
coast escaped the direct reach of this recent tragedy, it reminds us
that those who live near or along our Nation's 95,000-plus miles of
shoreline need to be able to monitor a range of ocean conditions and
quickly assess ocean-based threats, including tsunamis, hurricanes,
harmful algal blooms, and pollution. The purpose of this bill is to
fulfil these needs for ocean and coastal observation and warning
systems surrounding the United States.
This bi-partisan, science-based bill would authorize the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, to establish and
maintain an integrated network of ocean observing and communication
systems around our Nation's coastlines. This system would collect
instantaneous data and information on ocean conditions--such as
temperature, wave height, wind speed, currents, dissolved oxygen,
salinity, contaminants, and other variables--that are essential to
marine science and resource management as well as maritime
transportation, safety, and commerce.
As Chair of the Fisheries and Coast Guard Subcommittee of the
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, and as a
representative of a state with more than 5,000 miles of shoreline, I
want to ensure that the citizens of Maine, and all coastal states, have
the tools they need to monitor and assess what is happening off their
shores. The State of Maine has a strong and proud history rooted in our
connection to the sea, as do other coastal states, and our coastal
communities are highly dependent on the fisheries resources, coastal
habitats, tourist destinations, safe harbors, and other essential
services connected to the sea. The people of this country's livelihoods
are directly linked to how well we understand and adapt to changing
ocean conditions.
Our ability to understand ocean dynamics took a great leap forward in
2001, when marine scientists and educators launched an innovative
partnership known as the Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System, or
GoMOOS, to start gathering a range of ocean data on a large regional
scale. This prototype system, which started with ten observation buoys,
has transformed how we observe and track ocean conditions over time.
The GoMOOS system takes ocean and surface condition measurements on an
hourly basis through a network of linked buoys, and these real-time
measurements can be monitored and accessed by the public via the GoMOOS
Web site. The unprecedented geographical range and frequency of
measurements revolutionized our knowledge about the Gulf of Maine, and
GoMOOS continues to provide a tremendous public service for New
England.
Of course, the need to access this type of ocean information is not
limited to the Gulf of Maine. Similar observing systems are planned or
developed in other coastal regions, many in conjunction with NOAA,
universities, and State agencies. Data from these independent regional
systems, however, are often incompatible with data from other regions,
making it difficult to compile, manage, process, and communicate data
across networks. As a result, there is a possibility that these systems
would be unable to link their data and develop a comprehensive picture
of coastal and ocean conditions around the Nation.
The Ocean and Coastal Observation Systems Act of 2005 seeks to
rectify this situation by integrating ocean and coastal observation
efforts in cooperation with NOAA. This Act would encourage further
development of the regional systems, enable their data to be linked
through a national network, provide information that anyone could
access, and facilitate timely public warnings of hazardous ocean
conditions. It would authorize the National Ocean Research Leadership
Council to have general oversight for research and
[[Page S1294]]
development of this national undertaking. This Council would establish
an interagency program office that would plan and coordinate
operational activities and budgets, and NOAA would be the lead Federal
agency charged with ensuring that this national network of regional
observation associations, such as GoMOOS and others under development,
effectively integrates and utilizes ocean data for the benefit of the
American public.
As the U.S. Ocean Commission made clear in its final report issued in
September 2004, ocean and coastal observations are a cornerstone of
sound marine science, management, and commerce, and the potential uses
of this system are nearly unlimited. For example, fisheries scientists
and managers can use ocean data to better predict ocean productivity
and use this information to facilitate ecosystem management. Fishermen,
sailors, shippers, Coast Guard search-and-rescue units, and other
seafarers can better monitor sea conditions to more safely navigate
rough seas. Ocean scientists and regulators can better predict and
respond to marine pollution, harmful algal bloom outbreaks, or other
hazardous conditions and issue prompt alerts to potentially vulnerable
communities. Clearly, anyone who uses and depends upon the ocean stands
to benefit from this integrated system.
I am very proud to introduce this bill, and I would like to thank my
cosponsors, Senators Kerry, Stevens, and Inouye, for contributing to
this legislation and supporting this national initiative. Of course,
our current and expanding ocean observation and communication system
would not be possible without the work of dedicated professionals in
the ocean and coastal science, management, and research communities--
they have taken the initiative to develop the grassroots regional
observation systems as well as contribute to this legislation. Thanks
to their ongoing efforts, ocean observations will continue to provide a
tremendous service to the American ocean-dependent public.
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. 361
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 ``Ocean and Coastal
Observation System Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Ocean and coastal observations provide vital
information for protecting human lives and property from
marine hazards, enhancing national and homeland security,
predicting weather and global climate change, improving ocean
health and providing for the protection, sustainable use, and
enjoyment of the resources of the Nation's coasts, oceans,
and Great Lakes.
(2) The continuing and potentially devastating threat posed
by tsunamis, hurricanes, storm surges, and other marine
hazards requires immediate implementation of strengthened
observation and communications systems to provide timely
detection, assessment, and warnings to the millions of people
living in coastal regions of the United States and throughout
the world.
(3) The 95,000-mile coastline of the United States,
including the Great Lakes, is vital to the Nation's
prosperity, contributing over $117 billion to the national
economy in 2000, supporting jobs for more than 200 million
Americans, handling $700 billion in waterborne commerce, and
supporting commercial and sport fisheries valued at more than
$50 billion annually.
(4) Safeguarding homeland security, conducting search and
rescue operations, responding to natural and man-made coastal
hazards such as oil spills and harmful algal blooms, and
managing fisheries and other coastal activities require
improved monitoring of the Nation's waters and coastline,
including the ability to track vessels and to provide rapid
response teams with real-time environmental conditions
necessary for their work.
(5) While knowledge of the ocean and coastal environment
and processes is far from complete, advances in sensing
technologies and scientific understanding have made possible
long-term and continuous observation from shore, from space,
and in situ of ocean and coastal characteristics and
conditions.
(6) Many elements of a ocean and coastal observing system
are in place, but require national investment, consolidation,
completion, and integration at Federal, regional, State, and
local levels.
(7) The Commission on Ocean Policy recommends a national
commitment to a sustained and integrated ocean and coastal
observing system and to coordinated research programs in
order to assist the Nation and the world in understanding the
oceans and the global climate system, enhancing homeland
security, improving weather and climate forecasts,
strengthening management of ocean and coastal resources,
improving the safety and efficiency of maritime operations,
and mitigating marine hazards.
(8) In 2003, the United States led more than 50 nations in
affirming the vital importance of timely, quality, long-term
global observations as a basis for sound decision-making,
recognizing the contribution of observation systems to meet
national, regional, and global needs, and calling for
strengthened cooperation and coordination in establishing a
Global Earth Observation System of Systems, of which an
integrated ocean and coastal observing system is an essential
part.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to provide
for--
(1) the development and maintenance of an integrated ocean
and coastal observing system that provides the data and
information to ensure national security and public safety,
support economic development, sustain and restore healthy
marine ecosystems and the resources they support, enable
advances in scientific understanding of the oceans, and
strengthen science education and communication;
(2) implementation of research and development and
education programs to improve understanding of the oceans and
Great Lakes and achieve the full national benefits of an
integrated ocean and coastal observing system;
(3) implementation of a data and information management
system required by all components of an integrated ocean and
coastal observing system and related research to develop
early warning systems; and
(4) establishment of a system of regional ocean and coastal
observing systems to address local needs for ocean
information.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the National Ocean
Research Leadership Council established under section 7902(a)
of title 10, United States Code.
(2) Observing system.--The term ``observing system'' means
the integrated coastal, ocean and Great Lakes observing
system to be established by the Committee under section 4(a).
(3) National Oceanographic Partnership Program.--The term
``National Oceanographic Partnership Program'' means the
program established under section 7901 of title 10, United
States Code.
(4) Interagency program office.--The term ``interagency
program office'' means the office established under section
4(d).
SEC. 4. INTEGRATED OCEAN AND COASTAL OBSERVING SYSTEM.
(a) Establishment.--The President, acting through the
Council, shall establish and maintain an integrated system of
ocean and coastal observations, data communication and
management, analysis, modeling, research, and education
designed to provide data and information for the timely
detection and prediction of changes occurring in the ocean
and coastal environment that impact the Nation's social,
economic, and ecological systems. The observing system shall
provide for long-term, continuous and quality-controlled
observations of the coasts, oceans, and Great Lakes for the
following purposes:
(1) Improving the health of the Nation's coasts, oceans,
and Great Lakes.
(2) Protecting human lives and livelihoods from hazards
such as tsunamis, hurricanes, coastal erosion, and
fluctuating Great Lakes water levels.
(3) Supporting national defense and homeland security
efforts.
(4) Understanding the effects of human activities and
natural variability on the state of the coasts and oceans and
the Nation's socioeconomic well-being.
(5) Measuring, explaining, and predicting environmental
changes.
(6) Providing for the sustainable use, protection, and
enjoyment of ocean and coastal resources.
(7) Providing a scientific basis for implementation and
refinement of ecosystem-based management.
(8) Educating the public about the role and importance of
the oceans and Great Lakes in daily life.
(9) Tracking and understanding climate change and the ocean
and Great Lakes' roles in it.
(10) Supplying critical information to marine-related
businesses such as marine transportation, aquaculture,
fisheries, and offshore energy production.
(11) Supporting research and development to ensure
continuous improvement to ocean and coastal observation
measurements and to enhance understanding of the Nation's
ocean and coastal resources.
(b) System Elements.--In order to fulfill the purposes of
this Act, the observing system shall consist of the following
program elements:
(1) A national program to fulfill national observation
priorities, including the Nation's ocean contribution to the
Global Earth Observation System of Systems and the Global
Ocean Observing System.
[[Page S1295]]
(2) A network of regional associations to manage the
regional ocean and coastal observing and information programs
that collect, measure, and disseminate data and information
products to meet regional needs.
(3) A data management and communication system for the
timely integration and dissemination of data and information
products from the national and regional systems.
(4) A research and development program conducted under the
guidance of the Council.
(5) An outreach, education, and training program that
augments existing programs, such as the National Sea Grant
College Program and the Centers for Ocean Sciences Education
Excellence program, to ensure the use of the data and
information for improving public education and awareness of
the Nation's oceans and building the technical expertise
required to operate and improve the observing system.
(c) Council Functions.--In carrying out responsibilities
under this section, the Council shall--
(1) serve as the oversight body for the design and
implementation of all aspects of the observing system;
(2) adopt plans, budgets, and standards that are developed
and maintained by the interagency program office in
consultation with the regional associations;
(3) coordinate the observing system with other earth
observing activities including the Global Ocean Observing
System and the Global Earth Observing System of Systems;
(4) coordinate and administer programs of research and
development and education to support improvements to and the
operation of an integrated ocean and coastal observing system
and to advance the understanding of the oceans;
(5) establish pilot projects to develop technology and
methods for advancing the development of the observing
system;
(6) support the development of institutional mechanisms to
further the goals of the program and provide for the
capitalization of the required infrastructure;
(7) provide, as appropriate, support for and representation
on United States delegations to international meetings on
ocean and coastal observing programs, including those under
the jurisdiction of the International Joint Commission
involving Canadian waters; and
(8) in consultation with the Secretary of State, coordinate
relevant Federal activities with those of other nations.
(d) Interagency Program Office.--The Council shall
establish an interagency program office to be known as
``OceanUS''. The interagency program office shall be
responsible for program planning and coordination of the
observing system. The interagency program office shall--
(1) prepare annual and long-term plans for consideration by
the Council for the design and implementation of the
observing system that promote collaboration among Federal
agencies and regional associations in developing the global
and national observing systems, including identification and
refinement of a core set of variables to be measured by all
systems;
(2) coordinate the development of agency priorities and
budgets for implementation of the observing system, including
budgets for the regional associations;
(3) establish and refine standards and protocols for data
management and communications, including quality standards,
in consultation with participating Federal agencies and
regional associations;
(4) develop a process for the certification of the regional
associations and their periodic review and recertification;
and
(5) establish an external technical committee to provide
biennial review of the observing system.
(e) Lead Federal Agency.--The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration shall be the lead Federal agency
for implementation and operation of the observing system.
Based on the plans prepared by the interagency program office
and adopted by the Council, the Administrator of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shall--
(1) coordinate implementation, operation and improvement of
the observing system;
(2) establish efficient and effective administrative
procedures for allocation of funds among Federal agencies and
regional associations in a timely manner and according to the
budget adopted by the Council;
(3) implement and maintain appropriate elements of the
observing system;
(4) provide for the migration of scientific and
technological advances from research and development to
operational deployment;
(5) integrate and extend existing programs and pilot
projects into the operational observation system; and
(6) certify regional associations that meet the
requirements of subsection (f).
(f) Regional Associations of Ocean and Coastal Observing
Systems.--The Administrator of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration may certify one or more regional
associations to be responsible for the development and
operation of regional ocean and coastal observing systems to
meet the information needs of user groups in the region while
adhering to national standards. To be certifiable by the
Administrator, a regional association shall--
(1) demonstrate an organizational structure capable of
supporting and integrating all aspects of ocean and coastal
observing and information programs within a region;
(2) operate under a strategic operations and business plan
that details the operation and support of regional ocean and
coastal observing systems pursuant to the standards
established by the Council;
(3) provide information products for multiple users in the
region;
(4) work with governmental entities and programs at all
levels within the region to provide timely warnings and
outreach and education to protect the public; and
(5) meet certification standards developed by the
interagency program office in conjunction with the regional
associations and approved by the Council.
(g) Civil Liability.--For purposes of section 1346(b)(1)
and chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, the Suits in
Admiralty Act (46 U.S.C. App. 741 et seq.), and the Public
Vessels Act (46 U.S.C. App. 781 et seq.), any regional ocean
and coastal observing system that is a designated part of a
regional association certified under this section shall, in
carrying out the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be part
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and
any employee of such system, while acting within the scope of
his or her employment in carrying out such purposes, shall be
deemed to be an employee of the Government.
SEC. 5. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION.
The Council shall establish programs for research and
development and education for the ocean and coastal observing
system, including projects under the National Oceanographic
Partnership Program, consisting of the following:
(1) Basic research to advance knowledge of ocean and
coastal systems and ensure continued improvement of
operational products, including related infrastructure and
observing technology.
(2) Focused research projects to improve understanding of
the relationship between the coasts and oceans and human
activities.
(3) Large scale computing resources and research to advance
modeling of ocean and coastal processes.
(4) A coordinated effort to build public education and
awareness of the ocean and coastal environment and functions
that integrates ongoing activities such as the National Sea
Grant College Program and the Centers for Ocean Sciences
Education Excellence.
SEC. 6. INTERAGENCY FINANCING.
The departments and agencies represented on the Council are
authorized to participate in interagency financing and share,
transfer, receive, obligate, and expend funds appropriated to
any member of the Council for the purposes of carrying out
any administrative or programmatic project or activity under
this Act or under the National Oceanographic Partnership
Program, including support for the interagency program
office, a common infrastructure, and system integration for a
ocean and coastal observing system. Funds may be transferred
among such departments and agencies through an appropriate
instrument that specifies the goods, services, or space being
acquired from another Council member and the costs of the
same.
SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for the implementation
of an integrated ocean and coastal observing system under
section 4, and the research and development program under
section 5, including financial assistance to the interagency
program office, the regional associations for the
implementation of regional ocean and coastal observing
systems, and the departments and agencies represented on the
Council, such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal
years 2006 through 2010. At least 50 percent of the sums
appropriated for the implementation of the integrated ocean
and coastal observing system under section 4 shall be
allocated to the regional associations certified under
section 4(f) for implementation of regional ocean and coastal
observing systems. Sums appropriated pursuant to this section
shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 8. REPORTING REQUIREMENT.
Not later than March 31, 2010, the President, acting
through the Council, shall transmit to Congress a report on
the programs established under sections 4 and 5. The report
shall include a description of activities carried out under
the programs, an evaluation of the effectiveness of the
programs, and recommendations concerning reauthorization of
the programs and funding levels for the programs in
succeeding fiscal years.
______
By Mr. INOUYE (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Snowe,
Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 362. A bill to establish a program within the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and the United States Coast Guard to help
identify, determine sources of, assess, reduce, and prevent marine
debris and its adverse impacts on the marine environment and navigation
safety, in coordination with non-Federal entities, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
[[Page S1296]]
RESEARCH AND REDUCTION ACT
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Marine Debris
Research and Reduction Act. From the shore, our oceans seem vast and
limitless, but I fear that we often overlook the impacts our actions
have on the sea and its resources. The Act that I am introducing today
with my friends and colleagues, Senators Stevens, Cantwell, Snowe,
Kerry, and Lautenberg, focuses on one particular impact that goes
unnoticed by many: marine debris. I am proud to say that the Senate
unanimously passed this bill in the 108th Congress, and we look for
swift action on this legislation again this year.
In a high-tech era of radiation, carcinogenic chemicals, and human-
induced climate change, the problem of the trash produced by ocean-
going vessels or litter swept out to sea must seem old-fashioned by
comparison. Sea garbage would seem to be a simple issue that surely
cannot rise to the priority level of the stresses our 21st century
civilization places on the natural environment.
Regrettably, that perception is wrong. While marine debris includes
conventional ``trash,'' it also includes a vast array of additional
materials. It is discarded or lost fishing gear. It is cargo washed
overboard. It is abandoned equipment from our commercial fleets. Nor
does the ``low-tech'' nature of solid refuse diminish its deadly impact
on the creatures of the sea. Whether an animal dies from a immune
system weakened by toxic chemicals, or drowns entangled in a discarded
fishing net, the result is the same--and in many cases, preventable.
Global warming, disease, and toxic contamination of our seas has
already stressed these fragile ecosystems. These threats have been
described in last year's Final Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy, which also dedicated an entire chapter to the threats posed by
marine debris. The bill we introduce today adopts the measures
recommended by the Commission to help remove man-made marine debris
from the list of ocean threats. It also follows the recommendations of
the International Marine Debris Conference held in my home State of
Hawaii in 2000.
The bill establishes a Marine Debris Prevention and Removal Program
within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA,
directs the U.S. Coast Guard to improve enforcement of laws designed to
prevent ship-based pollution from plastics and other garbage,
reinvigorates an interagency committee on marine debris, and improves
our research and information on marine debris sources, threats, and
prevention.
In Hawaii, we are able to see the impacts of marine debris more
clearly than most because of the convergence caused by the North
Pacific Tropical High. Atmospheric forces cause ocean surface currents
to converge on Hawaii, bringing with them the vast amount of debris
floating throughout the Pacific. Since 1996, a total of 484 tons of
debris have been removed from coral reefs in the Northwestern Hawaiian
Islands, which is also home to many endangered marine species. But the
job is not done, because more arrives daily. In 2004 alone, the program
removed over 125 tons of debris.
I am pleased that the coordinated approach taken to address the
threats posed by marine debris in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands has
provided a model for the nation. NOAA's Pacific Islands Region
Fisheries Science Center is leading this interagency partnership, which
also includes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hawaii's business and
university communities, and conservation groups. Not only have we
removed debris that poses harm to endangered species, but with the help
of donated services, we have recycled the abandoned nets into energy to
power residential homes.
We have learned that our best path to success lies in partnering with
one another to share resources, and it is my hope that others may adapt
our project to their own shores through the partnership and funding
opportunities set forth in this bill. This is why the bill strengthens
and reestablishes an Interagency Committee on Marine Debris to
coordinate marine debris prevention and removal efforts among federal
agencies state governments, universities, and nongovernmental
organizations.
We must also bear in mind that no matter how zealously we reform our
practices, the ultimate solution lies in international cooperation. The
oceans connect the coastal nations of the world, and we must work
together to reduce this increasing threat to our seas and shores. The
Marine Debris Research and Reduction Act will provide he United States
with the tools to develop effective marine debris prevention and
removal programs on a worldwide basis, including reporting and
information requirements that will assist in the creation of an
international marine debris database.
Mr. President, I hope you will join me in supporting enactment of the
Marine Debris Research and Reduction Act. This bill will provide the
United States with the programs and resources necessary to protect our
most valuable resources, our oceans. I ask unanimous consent that the
full text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 362
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 ``Marine Debris Research
Prevention and Reduction Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The oceans, which comprise nearly three quarters of the
Earth's surface, are an important source of food and provide
a wealth of other natural products that are important to the
economy of the United States and the world.
(2) Ocean and coastal areas are regions of remarkably high
biological productivity, are of considerable importance for a
variety of recreational and commercial activities, and
provide a vital means of transportation.
(3) Ocean and coastal resources are limited and susceptible
to change as a direct and indirect result of human
activities, and such changes can impact the ability of the
ocean to provide the benefits upon which the Nation depends.
(4) Marine debris, including plastics, derelict fishing
gear, and a wide variety of other objects, has a harmful and
persistent effect on marine flora and fauna and can have
adverse impacts on human health.
(5) Marine debris is also a hazard to navigation, putting
mariners and rescuers, their vessels, and consequently the
marine environment at risk, and can cause economic loss due
to entanglement of vessel systems.
(6) Modern plastic materials persist for decades in the
marine environment and therefore pose the greatest potential
for long-term damage to the marine environment.
(7) Insufficient knowledge and data on the source,
movement, and effects of plastics and other marine debris in
marine ecosystems has hampered efforts to develop effective
approaches for addressing marine debris.
(8) Lack of resources, inadequate attention to this issue,
and poor coordination at the Federal level has undermined the
development and implementation of a Federal program to
address marine debris, both domestically and internationally.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to establish programs within the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and the United States Coast Guard
to help identify, determine sources of, assess, reduce, and
prevent marine debris and its adverse impacts on the marine
environment and navigation safety, in coordination with other
Federal and non-Federal entities;
(2) to re-establish the Inter-agency Marine Debris
Coordinating Committee to ensure a coordinated government
response across Federal agencies;
(3) to develop a Federal information clearinghouse to
enable researchers to study the sources, scale and impact of
marine debris more efficiently; and
(4) to take appropriate action in the international
community to prevent marine debris and reduce concentrations
of existing debris on a global scale.
SEC. 3. NOAA MARINE DEBRIS PREVENTION AND REMOVAL PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment of Program.--There is established, within
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a Marine
Debris Prevention and Removal Program to reduce and prevent
the occurrence and adverse impacts of marine debris on the
marine environment and navigation safety.
(b) Program Components.--Through the Marine Debris
Prevention and Removal Program, the Administrator shall carry
out the following activities:
(1) Mapping, identification, impact assessment, removal,
and prevention.--The Administrator shall, in consultation
with relevant Federal agencies, undertake marine debris
mapping, identification, impact assessment, prevention,
and removal efforts, with a focus on marine debris posing
a threat to living marine resources (particularly
endangered or protected species) and navigation safety,
including--
[[Page S1297]]
(A) the establishment of a process, building on existing
information sources maintained by Federal agencies such as
the Environmental Protection Agency and the Coast Guard, for
cataloguing and maintaining an inventory of marine debris and
its impacts found in the United States navigable waters and
the United States exclusive economic zone, including
location, material, size, age, and origin, and impacts on
habitat, living marine resources, human health, and
navigation safety;
(B) measures to identify the origin, location, and
projected movement of marine debris within the United States
navigable waters, the United States exclusive economic zone,
and the high seas, including the use of oceanographic,
atmospheric, satellite, and remote sensing data; and
(C) development and implementation of strategies, methods,
priorities, and a plan for preventing and removing marine
debris from United States navigable waters and within the
United States exclusive economic zone, including development
of local or regional protocols for removal of derelict
fishing gear.
(2) Reducing and preventing loss of gear.--The
Administrator shall improve efforts and actively seek to
prevent and reduce fishing gear losses, as well as to reduce
adverse impacts of such gear on living marine resources and
navigation safety, including--
(A) research and development of alternatives to gear posing
threats to the marine environment, and methods for marking
gear used in specific fisheries to enhance the tracking,
recovery, and identification of lost and discarded gear; and
(B) development of voluntary or mandatory measures to
reduce the loss and discard of fishing gear, and to aid its
recovery, such as incentive programs, reporting loss and
recovery of gear, observer programs, toll-free reporting
hotlines, computer-based notification forms, and providing
adequate and free disposal recepticals at ports.
(3) Outreach.--The Administrator shall undertake outreach
and education of the public and other stakeholders, such as
the fishing industry, fishing gear manufacturers, and other
marine-dependent industries, on sources of marine debris,
threats associated with marine debris and approaches to
identify, determine sources of, assess, reduce, and prevent
marine debris and its adverse impacts on the marine
environment and navigational safety. Including outreach and
education activities through public-private initiatives. The
Administrator shall coordinate outreach and education
activities under this paragraph with any outreach programs
conducted under section 2204 of the Marine Plastic Pollution
Research and Control Act of 1987 (33 U.S.C. 1915).
(c) Grants.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator shall provide financial
assistance, in the form of grants, through the Marine Debris
Prevention and Removal Program for projects to accomplish the
purposes of this Act.
(2) 50 percent matching requirement.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
Federal funds for any project under this section may not
exceed 50 percent of the total cost of such project. For
purposes of this subparagraph, the non-Federal share of
project costs may be provided by in-kind contributions and
other noncash support.
(B) Waiver.--The Administrator may waive all or part of the
matching requirement under subparagraph (A) if the
Administrator determines that no reasonable means are
available through which applicants can meet the matching
requirement and the probable benefit of such project
outweighs the public interest in such matching requirement.
(3) Amounts paid and services rendered under consent.--
(A) Consent decrees and orders.--The non-Federal share of
the cost of a project carried out under this Act may include
money paid pursuant to, or the value of any in-kind service
performed under, an administrative order on consent or
judicial consent decree that will remove or prevent marine
debris.
(B) Other decrees and orders.--The non-Federal share of the
cost of a project carried out under this Act may not include
any money paid pursuant to, or the value of any in-kind
service performed under, any other administrative order or
court order.
(4) Eligibility.--Any natural resource management authority
of a State, Federal or other government authority whose
activities directly or indirectly affect research or
regulation of marine debris, and any educational or
nongovernmental institutions with demonstrated expertise in a
field related to marine debris, are eligible to submit to the
Administrator a marine debris proposal under the grant
program.
(5) Grant criteria and guidelines.--Within 180 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall
promulgate necessary guidelines for implementation of the
grant program, including development of criteria and
priorities for grants. Such priorities may include proposals
that would reduce new sources of marine debris and provide
additional benefits to the public, such as recycling of
marine debris or use of biodegradable materials. In
developing those guidelines, the Administrator shall consult
with--
(A) the Interagency Marine Debris Committee;
(B) regional fishery management councils established under
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.);
(C) State, regional, and local governmental entities with
marine debris experience;
(D) marine-dependent industries; and
(E) non-governmental organizations involved in marine
debris research, prevention, or removal activities.
(6) Project review and approval.--The Administrator shall
review each marine debris project proposal to determine if it
meets the grant criteria and supports the goals of the Act.
Not later than 120 days after receiving a project proposal
under this section, the Administrator shall--
(A) provide for external merit-based peer review of the
proposal;
(B) after considering any written comments and
recommendations based on the review, approve or disapprove
the proposal; and
(C) provide written notification of that approval or
disapproval to the person who submitted the proposal.
(7) Project reporting.--Each grantee under this section
shall provide periodic reports as required by the
Administrator. Each report shall include all information
required by the Administrator for evaluating the progress and
success in meeting its stated goals, and impact on the marine
debris problem.
SEC. 4. COAST GUARD PROGRAM.
The Commandant of the Coast Guard shall, in cooperation
with the Administrator, undertake measures to reduce
violations of MARPOL Annex V and the Act to Prevent Pollution
from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) with respect to the
discard of plastics and other garbage from vessels. The
measures shall include--
(1) the development of a strategy to improve monitoring and
enforcement of current laws, as well as recommendations for
statutory or regulatory changes to improve compliance and for
the development of any appropriate amendments to MARPOL;
(2) regulations to address implementation gaps with respect
to the requirement of MARPOL Annex V and section 6 of the Act
to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1905) that all
United States ports and terminals maintain receptacles for
disposing of plastics and other garbage, which may include
measures to ensure that a sufficient quantity of such
facilities exist at all such ports and terminals,
requirements for logging the waste received, and for Coast
Guard comparison of vessel and port log books to determine
compliance;
(3) regulations to close record keeping gaps, which may
include requiring fishing vessels under 400 gross tons
entering United States ports to maintain records subject to
Coast Guard inspection on the disposal of plastics and other
garbage, that, at a minimum, include the time, date, type of
garbage, quantity, and location of discharge by latitude and
longitude or, if discharged on land, the name of the port
where such material is offloaded for disposal;
(4) regulations to improve ship-board waste management,
which may include expanding to smaller vessels existing
requirements to maintain ship-board receptacles and maintain
a ship-board waste management plan, taking into account
potential economic impacts and technical feasibility;
(5) the development, through outreach to commercial vessel
operators and recreational boaters, of a voluntary reporting
program, along with the establishment of a central reporting
location, for incidents of damage to vessels caused by marine
debris, as well as observed violations of existing laws and
regulations relating to disposal of plastics and other marine
debris; and
(6) a voluntary program encouraging United States flag
vessels to inform the Coast Guard of any ports in other
countries that lack adequate port reception facilities for
garbage.
SEC. 5. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION.
(a) Interagency Marine Debris Committee Established.--There
is established an Interagency Committee on Marine Debris to
coordinate a comprehensive program of marine debris research
and activities among Federal agencies, in cooperation and
coordination with non-governmental organizations, industry,
universities, and research institutions, State governments,
Indian tribes, and other nations, as appropriate, and to
foster cost-effective mechanisms to identify, determine
sources of, assess, reduce, and prevent marine debris, and
its adverse inpact on the marine environment and navigational
safety, including the joint funding of research and
mitigation and prevention strategies.
(b) Membership.--The Committee shall include a senior
official from--
(1) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
who shall serve as the chairperson of the Committee;
(2) the United States Coast Guard;
(3) the Environmental Protection Agency;
(4) the United States Navy;
(5) the Maritime Administration of the Department of
Transportation;
(6) the National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
(7) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
(8) the Department of State;
(9) the Marine Mammal Commission; and
(10) such other Federal agencies that have an interest in
ocean issues or water pollution prevention and control as the
Administrator determines appropriate.
(c) Meetings.--The Committee shall meet at least twice a
year to provide a public,
[[Page S1298]]
interagency forum to ensure the coordination of national and
international research, monitoring, education, and regulatory
actions addressing the persistent marine debris problem.
(d) Definition.--The Committee shall develop and promulgate
through regulation a definition of the term ``marine
debris''.
(e) Reporting.--
(1) Interagency report on marine debris impacts and
strategies.--Not later than 12 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Committee, through the
chairperson, and in cooperation with the coastal States,
Indian tribes, local governments, and non-governmental
organizations, shall complete and submit to the Congress a
report identifying the source of marine debris, examining the
ecological and economic impact of marine debris, alternatives
for reducing, mitigating, preventing, and controlling the
harmful affects of marine debris, the social and economic
costs and benefits of such alternatives, and recommendations
regarding both domestic and international marine debris
issues.
(2) Contents.--The report submitted under paragraph (1)
shall provide recommendations on--
(A) establishing priority areas for action to address
leading problems relating to marine debris;
(B) developing an effective strategy and approaches to
preventing, reducing, removing, and disposing of marine
debris, including through private-public partnerships;
(C) providing appropriate infrastructure for effective
implementation and enforcement of measures to prevent and
remove marine debris, especially the discard and loss of
fishing gear;
(D) establishing effective and coordinated education and
outreach activities; and
(E) ensuring Federal cooperation with, and assistance to,
the coastal States (as defined in section 304(4) of the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1453(4))),
Indian tribes, and local governments in the identification,
determination of sources, prevention, reduction, management,
mitigation, and control of marine debris and its adverse
impacts.
(3) Annual progress reports.--Not later than 2 years after
the date of the enactment of this Act, and every year
thereafter, the Committee, through the chairperson, shall
submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Resources
of the House of Representatives a report that evaluates
United States and international progress in meeting the
purposes of this Act. The report shall include--
(A) the status of implementation of the recommendations of
the Committee and analysis of their effectiveness;
(B) a summary of the marine debris inventory to be
maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration;
(C) a review of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration program authorized by section 3 of this Act,
including projects funded and accomplishments relating to
reduction and prevention of marine debris;
(D) a review of United States Coast Guard programs and
accomplishments relating to marine debris removal, including
enforcement and compliance with MARPOL requirements; and
(E) estimated Federal and non-Federal funding provided for
marine debris and recommendations for priority funding needs.
(f) Monitoring.--The Administrator, in cooperation with the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agecny, shall
utilize the marine debris data derived under this Act and
title V of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.) to assist--
(1) the Committee in ensuring coordination of research,
monitoring, education, and regulatory actions; and
(2) the United States Coast Guard in assessing the
effectiveness of this Act and the Act to Prevent Pollution
from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) in ensuring compliance
under section 2201 of the Marine Plastic Pollution Research
and Control Act of 1987 (33 U.S.C. 1913).
(g) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2203 of the Marine
Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987 (33 U.S.C.
1914) is repealed.
SEC. 6. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.
The Interagency Marine Debris Committee shall develop a
strategy and pursue in the International Maritime
Organization and other appropriate international and regional
forums, international action to reduce the incidence of
marine debris, including--
(1) the inclusion of effective and enforceable marine
debris prevention and removal measures in international and
regional agreements, including fisheries agreements and
maritime agreements;
(2) measures to strengthen and to improve compliance with
MARPOL Annex V;
(3) national reporting and information requirements that
will assist in improving information collection,
identification and monitoring of marine debris;
(4) the establishment of an international database,
consistent with the information clearinghouse established
under section 7, that will provide current information on
location, source, prevention, and removal of marine debris;
(5) the establishment of public-private partnerships and
funding sources for pilot programs that will assist in
implementation and compliance with marine debris requirements
in international agreements and guidelines;
(6) the identification of possible amendments to and
provisions in the International Maritime Organization
Guidelines for the Implementation of Annex V of MARPOL for
potential inclusion in Annex V; and
(7) when appropriate assist the responsible Federal agency
in bilateral negotiations to effectively enforce marine
debris prevention.
SEC. 7. FEDERAL INFORMATION CLEARINGHOUSE.
The Administrator, in coordination with the Committee,
shall maintain a Federal information clearinghouse on marine
debris that will be available to researchers and other
interested parties to improve source identification, data
sharing, and monitoring efforts through collaborative
research and open sharing of data. The clearinghouse shall
include--
(1) standardized protocols to map locations of commercial
fishing and aquaculture activities using Geographic
Information System techniques;
(2) a world-wide database which describes fishing gear and
equipment, and fishing practices, including information on
gear types and specifications;
(3) guidance on the identification of types of fishing gear
fragments and their sources developed in consultation with
persons of relevant expertise; and
(4) the data on mapping and identification of marine debris
to be developed pursuant to section 3(b)(1) of this Act.
SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
(2) Committee.--The term ``Committee'' means the
Interagency Marine Debris Committee established by section 5
of this Act.
(3) United states exclusive economic zone.--The term
``United States exclusive economic zone'' means the zone
established by Presidential Proclamation Numbered 5030, dated
March 10, 1983, including the ocean waters of the areas
referred to as ``eastern special areas'' in Article 3(1) of
the Agreement between the United States of America and the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Maritime Boundary,
signed June 1, 1990.
(4) MARPOL; annex v; convention.--The terms ``MARPOL'',
``Annex 5'', and ``Convention'' have the meaning given those
terms in paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 2(a) of the Act to
Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1901(a)).
SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal
year 2006 through 2010--
(1) to the Administrator for the purpose of carrying out
sections 3 and 7 of this Act, $10,000,000, of which no more
than 10 percent may be for administrative costs; and
(2) to the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast
Guard is operating, for the use of the Commandant of the
Coast Guard in carrying out sections 4 and 6 of this Act,
$5,000,000, of which no more than 10 percent may be used for
administrative costs.
______
By Mr. INOUYE (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Akaka, and Mr.
Lautenberg):
S. 363. A bill to amend the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention
and Control Act of 1990 to establish vessel ballast water management
requirements, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce the Ballast
Water Management Act of 2005. I am joined by my friend and colleague,
Senator Ted Stevens. For some time we have recognized the impacts of
land-based invasive species. In Hawaii, the impacts of such alien
species on native species have been among the most significant in the
country.
While not as visible, invasive species pose an equally great threat.
One of the major ways that aquatic invasives make their way around the
globe is through the ballast water used by vessels.
Modern maritime commerce depends on ships stabilized by the uptake
and discharge of huge volumes of ocean water for ballast. Regrettably,
ships do not transport such water alone--but also the plants and
animals, as well as human diseases such as cholera, that it contains.
An estimated 10,000 aquatic organisms travel around the globe each day
in the ballast water of cargo vessels. Over 2 billion gallons of
ballast water are discharged into waters of the United States each
year.
From the zebra mussel fouling the facilities and shores of the Great
Lakes, to the noxious algae that choke the coral reefs of Hawaii,
aquatic invasive species pose a serious threat to delicate marine
ecosystems and human health. The economic costs are also staggering--
the direct and indirect costs of
[[Page S1299]]
aquatic invasive species to the economy of the United States amount to
billions of dollars each year.
We must find an effective solution to this problem, while at the same
time ensuring that our maritime industry can continue to operate in a
cost-effective manner. We will need to rely on the steady collaborative
efforts of industry, science, government, and coastal communities as we
move forward.
The bill I introduce today lays the foundation for such progress. It
establishes standards for ballast water treatment that will be
effective but on a schedule that our maritime fleet can realistically
achieve. It recognizes safety as a paramount concern, and allows
flexibility in ballast exchange practices to safeguard vessels and
their passengers and crew. Looking to the future, my bill will also
encourage the development and adoption of new ballast water treatment
technologies, as well as innovative technologies to address other
vessel sources of invasives such as hull fouling, through a grant
program.
The bill closely tracks and is consistent with an agreement recently
negotiated in the International Maritime Organization. It would phase-
in ballast water treatment requirements on the same schedule as that
adopted by the IMO agreement, and require ballast water exchange to be
used until treatment systems are in place. Importantly, the
international agreement includes a provision assuring that parties can
adopt more stringent measures than those included in the agreement.
This provision was sought by the United States and is important to
assure the sovereignty of nations in addressing their needs while
striving for international cooperation. In light of this provision, the
bill includes a standard for treatment that is more effective than that
adopted by the international community to ensure that the impacts in
the United States are adequately prevented.
Finally, the bill would require a report on other vessel pathways of
invasive species, including hull fouling, and the development of
standards to reduce the introduction of invasive species through such
pathways. This issue is particularly important for Hawaii.
I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill. 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. 363
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 ``Ballast Water Management Act
of 2005''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The introduction of aquatic invasive species into the
Nation's waters is one of the most urgent issues facing the
marine environment in the United States.
(2) The direct and indirect costs of aquatic invasive
species to the economy of the United States amount to
billions of dollars per year.
(3) Invasive species are thought to have been involved in
70 percent of the last century's extinctions of native
aquatic species.
(4) Invasive aquatic species are a significant problem in
all regions of the United States, including Hawaii, Alaska,
San Francisco Bay, the Great Lakes, the Southeast, and the
Chesapeake Bay.
(5) Ballast water from ships is one of the largest pathways
for the introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species.
(6) It has been estimated that some 10,000 non-indigenous
aquatic organisms travel around the globe each day in the
ballast water of cargo ships.
(7) Over 2 billion gallons of ballast water are discharged
in United States waters each year. Ballast water may be the
source of the largest volume of foreign organisms released on
a daily basis into American ecosystems.
(8) Ballast water has been found to transport not only
invasive plants and animals but human diseases as well, such
as cholera.
(9) Invasive species may also be introduced by other vessel
conduits, including the hulls of ships.
(10) Invasive aquatic species may originate in other
countries, or from distinct regions in the United States.
(11) An average of 72 percent of all fish species
introduced in the Southeast have become established, many of
which are native to the United States but transplanted
outside their native ranges.
(12) The introduction of non-indigenous species has been
closely correlated with the disappearance of indigenous
species in Hawaii and other islands.
(13) Despite the efforts of more than 20 State, Federal,
and private agencies, unwanted alien pests are entering
Hawaii at an alarming rate----about 2 million times more
rapid than the natural rate.
(14) Current Federal programs are insufficient to
effectively address this growing problem.
(15) Preventing aquatic invasive species from being
introduced is the most cost-effective approach for addressing
this issue, because once established, they are costly and
sometimes impossible to control.
SEC. 3. BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT.
(a) In General.--Section 1101 of the Nonindigenous Aquatic
Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4711)
is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 1101. BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT.
``(a) Vessels to Which Section Applies.--
``(1) In general.--This section applies to a vessel that is
designed or constructed to carry ballast water; and
``(A) is a vessel of the United States (as defined in
section 2101(46) of title 46, United States Code); or
``(B) is a foreign vessel that--
``(i) is en route to a United States port; or
``(ii) has departed from a United States port and is within
the exclusive economic zone.
``(2) Exceptions.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), this
section does not apply to--
``(A) permanent ballast water in a sealed tank on a vessel
that is not subject to discharge;
``(B) a vessel of the Armed Forces; or
``(C) a vessel, or category of vessels, exempted by the
Secretary under paragraph (4).
``(3) Standards for vessels of the armed forces.--With
respect to a vessel of the Armed Forces that is designed or
constructed to carry ballast water, the Secretary of Defense,
after consultation with the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Secretary, shall
promulgate ballast water and sediment management standards
for such vessels that, so far as is reasonable and
practicable, achieve environmental results that are
comparable to those achieved by the requirements of this
section in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States. In promulgating those standards, the Secretary of
Defense may take into account the standards promulgated for
such vessels under section 312 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1322) to the extent that compliance with those
standards would meet the requirements of this Act.
``(4) Vessel exemptions by secretary.--The Secretary may
exempt a vessel, or category of vessels, from the application
of this section if the Secretary determines, after
consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Administrator of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, that ballast water
discharge from the vessel or category of vessels will not
have an adverse impact (as defined in section 1003(1) of this
Act), based on factors including the origin and destination
of the voyages undertaken by such vessel or category of
vessels.
``(5) Coast guard assessment and report.--Within 180 days
after the date of enactment of the Ballast Water Management
Act of 2005, the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall transmit
a report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure containing--
``(A) an assessment of the magnitude of ballast water
operations from vessels designed or constructed to carry
ballast water that are not described in paragraph (1) that
are transiting waters subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States; and
``(B) recommendations, including legislative
recommendations if appropriate, of options for addressing
such ballast water operations.
``(b) Uptake and Discharge of Ballast Water and Sediment.--
``(1) Prohibition.--The operator of a vessel to which this
section applies may not conduct the uptake or discharge of
ballast water and sediment except as provided in this
section.
``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to the
uptake or discharge of ballast water and sediment in the
following circumstances:
``(A) The uptake or discharge is solely for the purpose
of--
``(i) ensuring the safety of vessel in an emergency
situation; or
``(ii) saving a life at sea.
``(B) The uptake or discharge is accidental and the result
of damage to the vessel or its equipment and--
``(i) all reasonable precautions to prevent or minimize
ballast water and sediment discharge have been taken before
and after the damage occurs, the discovery of the damage, and
the discharge; and
``(ii) the owner or officer in charge of the vessel did not
willfully or recklessly cause the damage.
``(C) The uptake or discharge is solely for the purpose of
avoiding or minimizing the discharge of pollution from the
vessel.
``(D) The uptake and subsequent discharge on the high seas
of the same ballast water and sediment.
``(E) The uptake or discharge of ballast water and sediment
occurs at the same location where the whole of the ballast
water and sediment that is discharged was taken up and there
is no mixing with unmanaged ballast water and sediment from
another area.
[[Page S1300]]
``(3) Special rule for the great lakes.--Paragraph (2) does
not apply to a vessel subject to the regulations under
subsection (e)(2) until the vessel is required to conduct
ballast water treatment in accordance with subsection (f) of
this section.
``(c) Vessel Ballast Water Management Plan.--
``(1) In general.--A vessel to which this section applies
shall conduct all its ballast water management operations in
accordance with a ballast water management plan that--
``(A) meets the requirements prescribed by the Secretary by
regulation; and
``(B) is approved by the Secretary.
``(2) Approval criteria.--The Secretary may not approve a
ballast water management plan unless the Secretary determines
that the plan--
``(A) describes in detail safety procedures for the vessel
and crew associated with ballast water management;
``(B) describes in detail the actions to be taken to
implement the ballast water management requirements
established under this section;
``(C) describes in detail procedures for disposal of
sediment at sea and on shore;
``(D) designates the officer on board the vessel in charge
of ensuring that the plan is properly implemented;
``(E) contains the reporting requirements for vessels
established under this section; and
``(F) meets all other requirements prescribed by the
Secretary.
``(3) Copy of plan on board vessel.--The owner or operator
of a vessel to which this section applies shall maintain a
copy of the vessel's ballast water management plan on board
at all times.
``(d) Vessel Ballast Water Record Book.--
``(1) In general.--The owner or operator of a vessel to
which this section applies shall maintain a ballast water
record book on board the vessel in which--
``(A) each operation involving ballast water is fully
recorded without delay, in accordance with regulations
promulgated by the Secretary; and
``(B) each such operation is described in detail, including
the location and circumstances of, and the reason for, the
operation.
``(2) Availability.--The ballast water record book--
``(A) shall be kept readily available for examination by
the Secretary at all reasonable times; and
``(B) notwithstanding paragraph (1), may be kept on the
towing vessel in the case of an unmanned vessel under tow.
``(3) Retention period.--The ballast water record book
shall be retained--
``(A) on board the vessel for a period of 2 years after the
date on which the last entry in the book is made; and
``(B) under the control of the vessel's owner for an
additional period of 3 years.
``(4) Regulations.--In the regulations prescribed under
this section, the Secretary shall require, at a minimum,
that--
``(A) each entry in the ballast water record book be signed
and dated by the officer in charge of the ballast water
operation recorded; and
``(B) each completed page in the ballast water record book
be signed and dated by the master of the vessel.
``(5) Alternative means of recordkeeping.--The Secretary
may provide by regulation for alternative methods of
recordkeeping, including electronic recordkeeping, to comply
with the requirements of this subsection.
``(e) Ballast Water Exchange Requirements.--
``(1) In general.--Until a vessel conducts ballast water
treatment in accordance with the requirements of subsection
(f) of this section, the operator of a vessel to which this
section applies may not conduct the uptake or discharge of
ballast water unless the operator conducts ballast water
exchange, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the
Secretary, in a manner that results in an efficiency of at
least 95 percent volumetric exchange of the ballast water for
each ballast water tank.
``(2) Special rule for vessels in the great lakes.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this subsection, under regulations prescribed by the
Secretary to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic
nuisance species into the Great Lakes through the ballast
water of vessels, operators of vessels equipped with ballast
water tanks that enter a United States port on the Great
Lakes after operating on the waters beyond the exclusive
economic zone shall--
``(i) carry out exchange of ballast water on the waters
beyond the exclusive economic zone prior to entry into any
port within the Great Lakes; or
``(ii) carry out an exchange of ballast water in other
waters where the exchange does not pose a threat of
infestation or spread of aquatic nuisance species in the
Great Lakes and other waters of the United States, as
recommended by the Task Force under section 1102(a)(1).
``(B) Additional matters covered by the regulations.--The
regulations shall--
``(i) not affect or supersede any requirements or
prohibitions pertaining to the discharge of ballast water
into waters of the United States under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.);
``(ii) provide for sampling procedures to monitor
compliance with the requirements of the regulations;
``(iii) prohibit the operation of a vessel in the Great
Lakes if the master of the vessel has not certified to the
Secretary or the Secretary's designee by not later than the
departure of that vessel from the first lock in the St.
Lawrence Seaway that the vessel has complied with the
requirements of the regulations;
``(iv) protect the safety of--
``(I) each vessel; and
``(II) the crew and passengers of each vessel;
``(v) take into consideration different operating
conditions; and
``(vi) be based on the best scientific information
available.
``(C) Hudson river port.--The regulations under this
paragraph also apply to vessels that enter a United States
port on the Hudson River north of the George Washington
Bridge.
``(D) Education and technical assistance programs.--The
Secretary may carry out education and technical assistance
programs and other measures to promote compliance with the
regulations issued under this paragraph.
``(3) Exchange areas.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (B),
(C), and (D), the operator of a vessel to which this section
applies shall conduct ballast water exchange in accordance
with regulations prescribed by the Secretary--
``(i) at least 200 nautical miles from the nearest land;
and
``(ii) in water at least 200 meters in depth.
``(B) Minimum distance and depth.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (C),
if the operator of a vessel is unable to conduct ballast
water exchange in accordance with subparagraph (A), the
ballast water exchange shall be conducted in water that is--
``(I) as far as possible from land;
``(II) at least 50 nautical miles from land; and
``(III) in water of at least 200 meters in depth.
``(ii) Limitation.--The operator of a vessel may not
conduct ballast water exchange in accordance with clause (i)
in any area with respect to which the Secretary has
determined, after consultation with the Administrators of the
Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, that ballast water exchange in
the area will have an adverse impact, notwithstanding the
fact that the area meets the distance and depth criteria of
clause (i).
``(C) Exchange in designated area.--
``(i) In general.--If the operator of a vessel is unable to
conduct ballast water exchange in accordance with
subparagraph (B), the operator of the vessel may conduct
ballast water exchange in an area that does not meet the
distance and depth criteria of subparagraph (B) in such areas
as may be designated by the Administrator of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, determined in
consultation with the Secretary and the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, for that purpose.
``(ii) Charting.--The Administrator of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, in consultation with the
Secretary, shall designate such areas on nautical charts.
``(iii) Limitation.--The Administrator may not designate an
area under clause (i) if a ballast water exchange in that
area could have an adverse impact, as determined by the
Secretary in consultation with the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
``(D) Safety or stability exception.--
``(i) In general.--Subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) do not
apply to the discharge or uptake of ballast water if the
master of a vessel determines that compliance with
subparagraph (A), (B), or (C), whichever applies, would
threaten the safety or stability of the vessel, its crew, or
its passengers because of adverse weather, ship design or
stress, equipment failure, or any other relevant condition.
``(ii) Notification required.--Whenever the master of a
vessel conducts a ballast water discharge or uptake under the
exception described in clause (i), the master of the vessel
shall notify the Secretary as soon as practicable thereafter
but no later than 24 hours after the ballast water discharge
or uptake commenced.
``(iii) Limitation on volume.--The volume of any ballast
water taken up or discharged under the exception described in
clause (i) may not exceed the volume necessary to ensure the
safe operation of the vessel.
``(iv) Review of circumstances.--If the master of a vessel
conducts a ballast water discharge or uptake under the
exception described in clause (i) on more than 2 out of 6
sequential voyages, the Secretary shall review the
circumstances to determine whether those ballast water
discharges or uptakes met the requirements of this
subparagraph. The review under this clause shall be in
addition to any other enforcement activity by the Secretary.
``(E) Inability to comply with exchange area
requirements.--
``(i) Deviation or delay of voyage.--In determining the
ability of the operator of a vessel to conduct ballast water
exchange in accordance with the requirements of subparagraph
(A) or (B), a vessel is not required
[[Page S1301]]
to deviate from its intended voyage or unduly delay its
voyage to comply with those requirements.
``(ii) Partial compliance.--An operator of a vessel that is
unable to comply fully with the requirements of subparagraph
(A) or (B), shall conduct ballast water exchange to the
maximum extent feasible in compliance with those
subparagraphs.
``(F) Special rule for the great lakes.--This paragraph
does not apply to vessels subject to the regulations under
paragraph (2).
``(f) Ballast Water Treatment Requirements.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to the implementation schedule
in paragraph (3), before discharging ballast water in waters
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States a vessel to
which this section applies shall conduct ballast water
treatment so that the ballast water discharged will contain--
``(A) less than 0.1 living organisms per cubic meter that
are 50 or more micrometers in minimum dimension;
``(B) less than 0.1 living organisms per milliliter that
are less than 50 micrometers in minimum dimension and more
than 10 micrometers in minimum dimension;
``(C) concentrations of indicator microbes that are less
than--
``(i) 1 colony-forming unit of Toxicogenic vibrio cholera
(O1 and O139) per 100 milliliters, or less than 1 colony-
forming unit of that microbe per gram of wet weight of
zoological samples;
``(ii) 126 colony-forming units of escherichi coli per 100
milliliters; and
``(iii) 33 colony-forming units of intestinal enterococci
per 100 milliliters; and
``(D) concentrations of such indicator microbes as may be
specified in regulations promulgated by the Secretary that
are less than the amount specified in those regulations.
``(2) Reception facility exception.--Paragraph (1) does not
apply to a vessel that discharges ballast water into a
reception facility that meets standards prescribed by the
Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, for the reception of ballast
water that provide for the reception of ballast water and its
disposal or treatment in a way that does not impair or damage
the environment, human health, property, or resources. The
Secretary may not prescribe such standards that are less
stringent than any otherwise applicable Federal, State, or
local law requirements.
``(3) Implementation schedule.--Paragraph (1) applies to
vessels in accordance with the following schedule:
``(A) First phase.--Beginning January 1, 2009, for vessels
constructed on or after that date with a ballast water
capacity of less than 5,000 cubic meters.
``(B) Second phase.--Beginning January 1, 2012, for vessels
constructed on or after that date with a ballast water
capacity of 5,000 cubic meters or more.
``(C) Third phase.--Beginning January 1, 2014, for vessels
constructed before January 1, 2009, with a ballast water
capacity of 1,500 cubic meters or more but not more than
5,000 cubic meters.
``(D) Fourth phase.--Beginning January 1, 2016, for vessels
constructed--
``(i) before January 1, 2009, with a ballast water capacity
of less than 1,500 cubic meters or 5,000 cubic meters or
more; or
``(ii) on or after January 1, 2009, and before January 1,
2012, with a ballast water capacity of 5,000 cubic meters or
more.
``(4) Review of standards.--
``(A) In general.--In December, 2012, and in every third
year thereafter, the Secretary shall review the treatment
standards established in paragraph (1) of this subsection to
determine, in consultation with the Administrator of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, if the
standards should be revised to reduce the amount of organisms
or microbes allowed to be discharged using the best available
technology economically available. The Secretary shall revise
such standards as necessary by regulation.
``(B) Application of adjusted standards.--In the
regulations, the Secretary shall provide for the prospective
application of the adjusted standards prescribed under this
paragraph to vessels constructed after the date on which the
adjusted standards apply and for an orderly phase-in of the
adjusted standards to existing vessels.
``(5) Delay of application for vessel participating in
promising technology evaluations.--
``(A) In general.--If a vessel participates in a program
approved by the Secretary to test and evaluate promising
ballast water treatment technologies with the potential to
result in treatment technologies achieving a standard that is
the same as or more stringent than the standard that applies
under paragraph (1) before the first date on which paragraph
(1) applies to that vessel, the Secretary may postpone the
date on which paragraph (1) would otherwise apply to that
vessel for not more than 5 years.
``(B) Vessel diversity.--The Secretary--
``(i) shall seek to ensure that a wide variety of vessel
types and voyages are included in the program; but
``(ii) may not grant a delay under this paragraph to more
than 1 percent of the vessels to which subparagraph (A), (B),
(C), or (D) of paragraph (3) applies.
``(C) Termination of postponement.--The Secretary may
terminate the 5-year postponement period if participation of
the vessel in the program is terminated without the consent
of the Secretary.
``(6) Feasibility review.--
``(A) In general.--Not less than 2 years before the date on
which paragraph (1) applies to vessels under each
subparagraph of paragraph (3), the Secretary shall complete a
review to determine whether appropriate technologies are
available to achieve the standards set forth in paragraph (1)
for the vessels to which they apply under the schedule set
forth in paragraph (3).
``(B) Delay in scheduled application.--If the Secretary
determines, on the basis of the review conducted under
subparagraph (A), that compliance with the standards set
forth in paragraph (1) in accordance with the schedule set
forth in any subparagraph of paragraph (3) is not feasible,
the Secretary shall--
``(i) extend the date on which that subparagraph first
applies to vessels for a period of not more than 36 months;
and
``(ii) recommend action to ensure that compliance with the
extended date schedule for that subparagraph is achieved.
``(7) Treatment system approval required.--The operator of
a vessel may not use a ballast water treatment system to
comply with the requirements of this subsection unless the
system is approved by the Secretary. The Secretary shall
promulgate regulations establishing a process for such
approval.
``(g) Warnings Concerning Ballast Water Uptake.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall notify mariners of
any area in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United
states in which vessels should not uptake ballast water due
to known conditions.
``(2) Contents.--The notice shall include--
``(A) the coordinates of the area; and
``(B) if possible, the location of alternative areas for
the uptake of ballast water.
``(h) Sediment Management.--
``(1) In general.--The operator of a vessel to which this
section applies may not remove or dispose of sediment from
spaces designed to carry ballast water except in accordance
with this subsection and the ballast water management plan
required under subsection (c).
``(2) Design requirements.--
``(A) New vessels.--No person may remove and dispose of
such sediment from a vessel to which this section applies in
waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States that
is constructed on or after January 1, 2009, unless the vessel
is designed and constructed in a manner that--
``(i) minimizes the uptake and entrapment of sediment;
``(ii) facilitates removal of sediment; and
``(iii) provides for safe access for sediment removal and
sampling.
``(B) Existing vessels.--The operator of a vessel to which
this section applies that was constructed before January 1,
2009, may not remove and dispose of such sediment in waters
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States unless--
``(i) the vessel has been modified, to the extent
practicable and in accordance with regulations promulgated by
the Secretary, to achieve the objectives described in clauses
(i), (ii), and (iii) of subparagraph (A); or
``(ii) the removal and disposal of the sediment is
conducted in such a manner as to achieve those objectives to
the greatest extent practicable and in accordance with those
regulations.
``(C) Regulations.--The Secretary shall promulgate
regulations establishing design and construction standards to
achieve the objectives of subparagraph (A) and providing
guidance for modifications and practices under subparagraph
(B). The Secretary shall incorporate the standards and
guidance in the regulations governing the ballast water
management plan.
``(3) Sediment reception facilities.--
``(A) Standards.--The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency in consultation with the Secretary, shall
promulgate regulations governing facilities for the reception
of vessel sediment from spaces designed to carry ballast
water that provide for the disposal of such sediment in a way
that does not impair or damage the environment, human health,
or property or resources of the disposal area. The
Administrator may not prescribe standards under this
subparagraph that are less stringent than any otherwise
applicable Federal, State, or local law requirements.
``(B) Designation.--The Secretary shall designate
facilities for the reception of vessel sediment that meet the
requirements of the regulations promulgated under
subparagraph (A) at ports and terminals where ballast tanks
are cleaned or repaired.
``(i) Examinations and Certifications.--
``(1) Initial examination.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall examine vessels to
which this section applies to determine whether--
``(i) there is a ballast water management plan for the
vessel; and
``(ii) the equipment used for ballast water and sediment
management in accordance with the requirements of this
section and the regulations promulgated hereunder is
installed and functioning properly.
``(B) New vessels.--For vessels constructed on or after
January 1, 2009, the Secretary shall conduct the examination
required by subparagraph (A) before the vessel is placed in
service.
[[Page S1302]]
``(C) Existing vessels.--For vessels constructed before
January 1, 2009, the Secretary shall--
``(i) conduct the examination required by subparagraph (A)
before the date on which subsection (f)(1) applies to the
vessel according to the schedule in subsection (f)(3); and
``(ii) inspect the vessel's ballast water record book
required by subsection (d).
``(2) Subsequent examinations.--The Secretary shall examine
vessels no less frequently than once each year to ensure
vessel compliance with the requirements of this section.
``(3) Inspection authority.--In order to carry out the
provisions of this section, the Secretary may take ballast
water samples at any time on any vessel to which this section
applies to ensure its compliance with this Act.
``(4) Required certificate.--
``(A) In general.--If, on the basis of an initial
examination under paragraph (1) the Secretary finds that a
vessel complies with the requirements of this section and the
regulations promulgated hereunder, the Secretary shall issue
a certificate under this paragraph as evidence of such
compliance. The certificate shall be valid for a period of
not more than 5 years, as specified by the Secretary. The
certificate or a true copy shall be maintained on board the
vessel.
``(B) Foreign certificates.--The Secretary may treat a
certificate issued by a foreign government as a certificate
issued under subparagraph (A) if the Secretary determines
that the standards used by the issuing government are
equivalent to or more stringent than the standards used by
the Secretary under subparagraph (A).
``(5) Notification of violations.--If the Secretary finds,
on the basis of an examination under paragraph (1) or (2),
sampling under paragraph (3), or any other information, that
a vessel is being operated in violation of the requirements
of this section and the regulations promulgated hereunder,
the Secretary shall--
``(A) notify--
``(i) the master of the vessel; and
``(ii) the captain of the port at the vessel's next port of
call; and
``(B) take such other action as may be appropriate.
``(j) Detention of Vessels.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, by notice to the owner,
charterer, managing operator, agent, master, or other
individual in charge of a vessel, may detain that vessel if
the Secretary has reasonable cause to believe that--
``(A) the vessel is a vessel to which this section applies;
``(B) the vessel does not comply with the requirements of
this section or of the regulations issued hereunder or is
being operated in violation of such requirements; and
``(C) the vessel is about to leave a place in the United
States.
``(2) Clearance.--
``(A) In general.--A vessel detained under paragraph (1)
may obtain clearance under section 4197 of the Revised
Statutes (46 U.S.C. App. 91) only if the violation for which
it was detained has been corrected.
``(B) Withdrawal.--If the Secretary finds that a vessel
detained under paragraph (1) has received a clearance under
section 4197 of the Revised Statutes (46 U.S.C. App. 91)
before it was detained under paragraph (1), the Secretary
shall request the Secretary of the Treasury to withdraw the
clearance. Upon request of the Secretary, the Secretary of
the Treasury shall withhold or revoke the clearance.
``(k) Sanctions.--
``(1) Civil penalties.--Any person who violates a
regulation promulgated under this section shall be liable for
a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $25,000. Each day
of a continuing violation constitutes a separate violation. A
vessel operated in violation of the regulations is liable in
rem for any civil penalty assessed under this subsection for
that violation.
``(2) Criminal penalties.--Any person who knowingly
violates the regulations promulgated under this section is
guilty of a class C felony.
``(3) Revocation of clearance.--Except as provided in
subsection (j)(2), upon request of the Secretary, the
Secretary of the Treasury shall withhold or revoke the
clearance of a vessel required by section 4197 of the Revised
Statutes (46 U.S.C. App. 91), if the owner or operator of
that vessel is in violation of the regulations issued under
this section.
``(4) Exception to sanctions.--This subsection does not
apply to a failure to exchange ballast water if--
``(A) the master of a vessel, acting in good faith, decides
that the exchange of ballast water will threaten the safety
or stability of the vessel, its crew, or its passengers; and
``(B) the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the
Act are complied with.
``(l) Consultation with Canada, Mexico, and Other Foreign
Governments.--In developing the guidelines issued and
regulations promulgated under this section, the Secretary is
encouraged to consult with the Government of Canada, the
Government of Mexico, and any other government of a foreign
country that the Secretary, in consultation with the Task
Force, determines to be necessary to develop and implement an
effective international program for preventing the
unintentional introduction and spread of nonindigenous
species.
``(m) International Cooperation.--The Secretary, in
cooperation with the International Maritime Organization of
the United Nations and the Commission on Environmental
Cooperation established pursuant to the North American Free
Trade Agreement, is encouraged to enter into negotiations
with the governments of foreign countries to develop and
implement an effective international program for preventing
the unintentional introduction and spread of nonindigenous
species. The Secretary is particularly encouraged to seek
bilateral or multilateral agreements with Canada, Mexico, and
other nations in the Wider Caribbean (as defined in the
Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine
Environment of the Wider Caribbean (Cartagena Convention)
under this section.
``(n) Non-discrimination.--The Secretary shall ensure that
vessels registered outside of the United States do not
receive more favorable treatment than vessels registered in
the United States when the Secretary performs studies,
reviews compliance, determines effectiveness, establishes
requirements, or performs any other responsibilities under
this Act.
``(o) Support for Federal Ballast Water Demonstration
Project.--In addition to amounts otherwise available to the
Maritime Administration, the National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration, and the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service for the Federal Ballast Water Demonstration
Project, the Secretary shall provide support for the conduct
and expansion of the project, including grants for research
and development of innovative technologies for the
management, treatment, and disposal of ballast water and
sediment, for ballast water exchange, and for other vessel
vectors of invasive aquatic species such as hull fouling.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary
$25,000,000 for each fiscal year to carry out this
subsection.
``(p) Consultation With Task Force.--The Secretary shall
consult with the Task Force in carrying out this section.
``(q) Preemption.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the provisions of subsections (e) and (f) (other than
subsection (f)(2)) supersede any provision of State or local
law determined by the Secretary to be inconsistent with the
requirements of that subsection or to conflict with the
requirements of that subsection.
``(r) Regulations.--The Secretary may issue such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out this section and
the terms defined in section 1003 that are used in this
section.''.
(b) Definitions.--Section 1003 of the Nonindigenous Aquatic
Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4702)
is amended--
(1) by redesignating--
(A) paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as paragraphs (2), (3),
and (4), respectively;
(B) paragraphs (4), (5), (6), (7), and (8) as paragraphs
(8), (9), (10), (11), and (12), respectively;
(C) paragraphs (9) and (10) as paragraphs (14) and (15)
respectively;
(D) paragraphs (11) and (12) as paragraphs (17) and (18),
respectively;
(E) paragraphs (13), (14), and (15) as paragraphs (20),
(21), and (22), respectively;
(F) paragraph (16) as paragraph (26); and
(G) paragraph (17) as paragraph (23) and inserting it after
paragraph (22), as redesignated;
(2) by inserting before paragraph (2), as redesignated, the
following:
``(1) `adverse impact' means the direct or indirect result
or consequence of an event or process that--
``(A) creates a hazard to the environment, human health,
property, or a natural resource;
``(B) impairs biological diversity; or
``(C) interferes with the legitimate use of waters subject
to the jurisdiction of the United States;'';
(3) by striking paragraph (4), as redesignated, and
inserting the following:
``(4) `ballast water'--
``(A) means water taken on board a vessel to control trim,
list, draught, stability, or stresses of the vessel,
including matter suspended in such water; but
``(B) does not include potable or technical water that does
not contain harmful aquatic organisms or pathenogens that is
taken on board a vessel and used for a purpose described in
subparagraph (A) if such potable or technical water is
discharged in compliance with section 312 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1322);'';
(4) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
``(5) `ballast water capacity' means the total volumetric
capacity of any tanks, spaces, or compartments on a vessel
that is used for carrying, loading, or discharging ballast
water, including any multi-use tank, space, or compartment
designed to allow carriage of ballast water;
``(6) `ballast water management' means mechanical,
physical, chemical, and biological processes used, either
singularly or in combination, to remove, render harmless, or
avoid the uptake or discharge of harmful aquatic organisms
and pathogens within ballast water and sediment;
``(7) `constructed' means a state of construction of a
vessel at which--
``(A) the keel is laid;
``(B) construction identifiable with the specific vessel
begins;
``(C) assembly of the vessel has begun comprising at least
50 tons or 1 percent of the estimated mass of all structural
material of the vessel, whichever is less; or
``(D) the vessel undergoes a major conversion;'';
[[Page S1303]]
(5) by inserting after paragraph (12), as redesignated, the
following:
``(13) `harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens' means
aquatic organisms or pathogens that have been determined by
the Secretary, after consultation with the Administrator of
the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to
cause an adverse impact if introduced into the waters subject
to the jurisdiction of the United States;'';
(6) by inserting after paragraph (15), as redesignated, the
following:
``(16) `major conversion' means a conversion of a vessel,
that--
``(A) changes its ballast water carrying capacity by at
least 15 percent;
``(B) changes the vessel class;
``(C) is projected to prolong the vessel's life by at least
10 years (as determined by the Secretary); or
``(D) results in modifications to the vessel's ballast
water system, except--
``(i) component replacement-in-kind; or
``(ii) conversion of a vessel to meet the requirements of
section 1101(e);'';
(7) by inserting after paragraph (18), as redesignated, the
following:
``(19) `sediment' means matter that has settled out of
ballast water within a vessel;'';
(8) by inserting after paragraph (23), as redesignated, the
following:
``(24) `United States port' means a port, river, harbor, or
offshore terminal under the jurisdiction of the United
States, including ports located in Puerto Rico, Guam, the
Northern Marianas, and the United States Virgin Islands;
``(25) `vessel of the Armed Forces' means--
``(A) any vessel owned or operated by the Department of
Defense, other than a time or voyage chartered vessel; and
``(B) any vessel owned or operated by the Department of
Homeland Security that is designated by the Secretary of the
department in which the Coast Guard is operating as a vessel
equivalent to a vessel described in subparagraph (A);''; and
(9) by inserting after paragraph (26), as redesignated, the
following:
``(27) `waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States' means navigable waters and the territorial sea of the
United States, the exclusive economic zone, and the Great
Lakes.''.
(c) Great Lakes Regulations.--Until vessels described in
section 1101(e)(2) of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance
Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4711(e)(2)), as
amended by this Act, are required to conduct ballast water
treatment in accordance with the requirements of section
1101(f) of that Act (16 U.S.C. 1101(f)), as amended by this
Act, the regulations promulgated by the Secretary of
Transportation under section 1101 of the Nonindigenous
Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16
U.S.C. 4711), as such regulations were in effect on the day
before the date of enactment of this Act, shall remain in
full force and effect for, and shall continue to apply to,
such vessels.
SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 1301(a) of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance
Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4741(a)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon in paragraph
(4)(B);
(2) by striking ``1102(f).'' in paragraph (5)(B) and
inserting ``1102(f); and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through
2010 to the Secretary to carry out section 1101.''.
SEC. 5. COAST GUARD REPORT ON OTHER VESSEL-RELATED VECTORS OF
INVASIVE SPECIES.
(a) In General.--Within 90 days after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall transmit
a report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure on vessel-related vectors
of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens other than ballast
water and sediment, including vessel hulls and equipment, and
from vessels equipped with ballast tanks that carry no
ballast water on board.
(b) Best Practices.--As soon as practicable, the Coast
Guard shall develop best practices standards and procedures
designed to reduce the introduction of invasive species into
and within the United States from vessels and establish a
timeframe for implementation of those standards and
procedures by vessels, in addition to the mandatory
requirements set forth in section 1101 for ballast water.
Such standards and procedures should include designation of
geographical locations for uptake and discharge of untreated
ballast water, as well as standards and procedures for other
vessel vectors of invasive aquatic species. The Commandant
shall transmit a report to the Committees describing the
standards and procedures developed and the implementation
timeframe, together with any recommendations, including
legislative recommendations if appropriate, the Commandant
deems appropriate. The Secretary of the department in which
the Coast Guard is operating may promulgate regulations to
incorporate and enforce standards and procedures developed
under this subsection.
______
By Mr. INOUYE (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Lott, Ms. Cantwell,
Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 364. A bill to establish a program within the National Oceanic
Atmospheric Administration to integrate Federal coastal and ocean
mapping activities; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Ocean and
Coastal Mapping Integration Act, and I am pleased to be joined by my
Commerce Committee Chairman, Senator Stevens, and fellow Committee
members Senators Lott, Cantwell, Snowe, Kerry, and Lautenberg, who are
all original cosponsors of the bill. I am pleased to report that the
Senate passed this bill unanimously in the 108th Congress, and we look
forward to moving this legislation quickly this year, particularly
because of its importance to coastal planning for natural hazards such
as tsunami.
The jurisdiction of the United States extends 200 miles beyond its
coastline and includes the U.S. Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic
Zone, or ``EEZ.'' Regrettably, nearly 90 percent of this expanse
remains unmapped by modern technologies, meaning that we have almost no
information about a swath of ocean as large as the terra firma of the
entire United States.
There was a time in the history of our Nation when our best efforts
to map the seas meant lowering weights tied to piano wire over the side
of a vessel, and measuring how deep they went. These efforts led to the
development of rudimentary nautical charts designed to help mariners
navigate safely. The rapidly increasing uses of our coastal and ocean
waters, however, call for development of a new generation of ecosystem-
oriented mapping and assessment products and services.
The technologies of today create richly layered mapping products that
expand far beyond just charting for safe navigation. Now, by combining
such information as mineral surveys of the U.S. Geological Service,
habitat characterizations of the National Oceanic Atmospheric
Administration NOAA, and watershed assessments of the Environmental
Protection Agency into a single product, map users are able to consider
the impacts of their actions on multiple facets of the marine
environment.
Last year, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy issued a report
highlighting the urgent need to modernize, improve, expand, and
integrate federal mapping efforts to improve navigation, safety and
resource management decisionmaking. By employing integrated mapping
approaches, urban and residential growth can be directed away from
areas of high risk from ocean-based threats such as tsunami and tidal
surge. The risks of maritime activities can be minimized by identifying
hazards that could impact on sensitive ecosystems, and devising
appropriate mitigation plans. Living marine resource managers can also
gauge where and how best to focus their efforts to restore essential
marine habitats.
The bill we are introducing today will lay the foundation for
producing the ocean maps of the 21st century. It mandates coordination
among the many federal agencies with mapping missions with NOAA as the
lead in developing national mapping priorities and strategies. The bill
would also establish national hydrographic centers to manage
comprehensively the mapping data produced by the federal government,
encourage innovation in technologies, and authorize the funding
necessary to implement this comprehensive effort.
Perhaps the most important lesson that comprehensive, integrated
mapping can afford is an awareness of a web of human marine communities
as rich and varied as the ocean itself. From awareness grows
understanding, respect, and cooperation.
I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this measure
that will, in turn, support the development of healthy coastal
communities across the nation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of
this bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 364
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
[[Page S1304]]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Ocean and Coastal Mapping
Integration Act''.
SEC. 2. INTEGRATED OCEAN AND COASTAL MAPPING PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Administrator of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration shall establish a program to
develop, in coordination with the Interagency Committee on
Ocean and Coastal Mapping, a coordinated and comprehensive
Federal ocean and coastal mapping plan for the Great Lakes
and Coastal State waters, the territorial sea, the exclusive
economic zone, and the continental shelf of the United States
that enhances ecosystem approaches in decision-making for
conservation and management of marine resources and habitats,
establishes research priorities, supports the siting of
research and other platforms, and advances ocean and coastal
science.
(b) Program Parameters.--In developing such a program, the
Administrator shall work with the Committee to--
(1) identify all Federal and Federally-funded programs
conducting shoreline delineation and ocean or coastal
mapping, noting geographic coverage, frequency, spatial
coverage, resolution, and subject matter focus of the data
and location of data archives;
(2) promote cost-effective, cooperative mapping efforts
among all Federal agencies conducting ocean and coastal
mapping agencies by increasing data sharing, developing data
acquisition and metadata standards, and facilitating the
interoperability of in situ data collection systems, data
processing, archiving, and distribution of data products;
(3) facilitate the adaptation of existing technologies as
well as foster expertise in new ocean and coastal mapping
technologies, including through research, development, and
training conducted in cooperation with the private sector,
academia, and other non-Federal entities;
(4) develop standards and protocols for testing innovative
experimental mapping technologies and transferring new
technologies between the Federal government and the private
sector or academia;
(5) centrally archive, manage, and distribute data sets as
well as provide mapping products and services to the general
public in service of statutory requirements;
(6) develop specific data presentation standards for use by
Federal, State, and other entities that document locations of
Federally permitted activities, living and nonliving
resources, marine ecosystems, sensitive habitats, submerged
cultural resources, undersea cables, offshore aquaculture
projects, and any areas designated for the purposes of
environmental protection or conservation and management of
living marine resources; and
(7) identify the procedures to be used for coordinating
Federal data with State and local government programs.
SEC. 3. INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON OCEAN AND COASTAL MAPPING.
(a) Establishment.--There is hereby established an
Interagency Committee on Ocean and Coastal Mapping.
(b) Membership.--The Committee shall be comprised of senior
representatives from Federal agencies with ocean and coastal
mapping and surveying responsibilities. The representatives
shall be high-ranking officials of their respective agencies
or departments and, whenever possible, the head of the
portion of the agency or department that is most relevant to
the purposes of this Act. Membership shall include senior
representatives from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the Chief of Naval Operations, the United
States Geological Survey, Minerals Management Service,
National Science Foundation, National Geospatial-Intelligence
Agency, United States Army Corps of Engineers, United States
Coast Guard, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal
Emergency Management Agency and National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, and other appropriate Federal agencies
involved in ocean and coastal mapping.
(c) Chairman.--The Committee shall be chaired by the
representative from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. The chairman may create subcommittees chaired
by any member agency of the committee. Working groups may be
formed by the full Committee to address issues of short
duration.
(d) Meetings.--The Committee shall meet on a quarterly
basis, but subcommittee or working group meetings shall meet
on an as-needed basis.
(e) Coordination.--The committee should coordinate
activities, when appropriate, with--
(1) other Federal efforts, including the Digital Coast,
Geospatial One-Stop, and the Federal Geographic Data
Committee;
(2) international mapping activities; and
(3) States and user groups through workshops and other
appropriate mechanisms.
SEC. 4. NOAA INTEGRATED MAPPING INITIATIVE.
(a) In General.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation
with the Committee, shall develop and submit to the Congress
a plan for an integrated ocean and coastal mapping initiative
within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
(b) Plan Requirements.--The plan shall--
(1) identify and describe all ocean and coastal mapping
programs within the agency, including those that conduct
mapping or related activities in the course of existing
missions, such as hydrographic surveys, ocean exploration
projects, living marine resource conservation and management
programs, coastal zone management projects, and ocean and
coastal science projects;
(2) establish priority mapping programs and establish and
periodically update priorities for geographic areas in
surveying and mapping, as well as minimum data acquisition
and metadata standards for those programs;
(3) encourage the development of innovative ocean and
coastal mapping technologies and applications through
research and development through cooperative or other
agreements at joint centers of excellence and with the
private sector;
(4) document available and developing technologies, best
practices in data processing and distribution, and leveraging
opportunities with other Federal agencies, non-governmental
organizations, and the private sector;
(5) identify training, technology, and other resource
requirements for enabling the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's programs, ships, and aircraft to
support a coordinated ocean and coastal mapping program;
(6) identify a centralized mechanism or office for
coordinating data collection, processing, archiving, and
dissemination activities of all such mapping programs within
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
including--
(A) designating primary data processing centers to maximize
efficiency in information technology investment, develop
consistency in data processing, and meet Federal mandates for
data accessibility; and
(B) designating a repository that is responsible for
archiving and managing the distribution of all ocean and
coastal mapping data to simplify the provision of services to
benefit Federal and State programs; and
(6) set forth a timetable for implementation and completion
of the plan, including a schedule for periodic Congressional
progress reports, and recommendations for integrating
approaches developed under the initiative into the
interagency program.
(c) NOAA Joint Ocean and Coastal Mapping Centers.--The
Administrator is authorized to maintain and operate up to 3
joint ocean and coastal mapping centers, including a joint
hydrographic center, which shall be co-located with an
institution of higher education. The centers shall serve as
hydrographic centers of excellence and are authorized to
conduct activities necessary to carry out the purposes of
this Act, including--
(1) research and development of innovative ocean and
coastal mapping technologies, equipment, and data products;
(2) mapping of the United States outer continental shelf;
(3) data processing for non-traditional data and uses;
(4) advancing the use of remote sensing technologies, for
related issues, including mapping and assessment of essential
fish habitat and of coral resources, ocean observations and
ocean exploration; and
(5) providing graduate education in ocean and coastal
mapping sciences for National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Commissioned Officer Corps, personnel of other
agencies with ocean and coastal mapping programs, and
civilian personnel.
SEC. 5. INTERAGENCY PROGRAM REPORTING.
No later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this
Act, and bi-annually thereafter, the Chairman of the
Committee shall transmit to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives
Committee on Resources a report detailing progress made in
implementing the provisions of this Act, including--
(1) an inventory of ocean and coastal mapping data, noting
the metadata, within the territorial seas and the exclusive
economic zone and throughout the continental shelf of the
United States, noting the age and source of the survey and
the spatial resolution (metadata) of the data;
(2) identification of priority areas in need of survey
coverage using present technologies;
(3) a resource plan that identifies when priority areas in
need of modern ocean and coastal mapping surveys can be
accomplished;
(4) the status of efforts to produce integrated digital
maps of ocean and coastal areas;
(5) a description of any products resulting from
coordinated mapping efforts under this Act that improve
public understanding of the coasts, oceans, or regulatory
decision-making;
(6) documentation of minimum and desired standards for data
acquisition and integrated metadata;
(7) a statement of the status of Federal efforts to
leverage mapping technologies, coordinate mapping activities,
share expertise, and exchange data;
(8) a statement of resource requirements for organizations
to meet the goals of the program, including technology needs
for data acquisition, processing and distribution systems;
(9) a statement of the status of efforts to declassify data
gathered by the Navy, the National Geospatial-Intelligence
Agency and other agencies to the extent possible without
jeopardizing national security, and make it available to
partner agencies and the public; and
[[Page S1305]]
(10) a resource plan for a digital coast integrated mapping
pilot project for the northern Gulf of Mexico that will--
(A) cover the area from the authorized coastal counties
through the territorial sea;
(B) identify how such a pilot project will leverage public
and private mapping data and resources, such as the United
States Geological Survey National Map, to result in an
operational coastal change assessment program for the
subregion; and
(11) the status of efforts to coordinate Federal programs
with State and local government programs and leverage those
programs.
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--In addition to the amounts authorized by
section 306 of the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of
1998 (33 U.S.C. 892d), there are authorized to be
appropriated to the Administrator to carry out this Act--
(1) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
(2) $26,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
(3) $32,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
(4) $38,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
(5) $45,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2013.
(b) Joint Ocean and Coastal Mapping Centers.--Of the
amounts appropriated pursuant to subsection (a), the
following amounts shall be used to carry out section 4(c) of
this Act:
(1) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
(2) $11,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.
(3) $12,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
(4) $13,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
(5) $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2013.
(c) Interagency Committee.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, from amounts authorized to be appropriated
for fiscal years 2006 through 2013 to the Department of
Defense, the Department of the Interior, the Department of
Homeland Security, the Environmental Protection Agency, and
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the head
of each such department or agency may make available not more
than $10,000,000 per fiscal year to carry out interagency
activities under section 3 of this Act.
SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
(2) Coastal state.--The term ``coastal state'' has the
meaning given that term by section 304(4) of the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1453(4).
(3) Committee.--The term ``Committee'' means the
Interagency Ocean Mapping Committee established by section 3.
(4) Exclusive economic zone.--The term ``exclusive economic
zone'' means the exclusive economic zone of the United States
established by Presidential Proclamation No. 5030, of March
10, 1983.
(5) Ocean and coastal mapping.--The term ``ocean and
coastal mapping'' means the acquisition, processing, and
management of physical, biological, geological, chemical, and
archaeological characteristics and boundaries of ocean and
coastal areas, resources, and sea beds through the use of
acoustics, satellites, aerial photogrammetry, light and
imaging, direct sampling, and other mapping technologies.
(6) Territorial sea.--The term ``territorial sea'' means
the belt of sea measured from the baseline of the United
States determined in accordance with international law, as
set forth in Presidential Proclamation Number 5928, dated
December 27, 1988.
______
By Mr. COLEMAN (for himself and Mr. Dayton):
S. 365. A bill to amend the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 to
authorize appropriations to provide assistance for domestic and foreign
centers and programs for the treatment of victims of torture, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, torture is a fundamental violation of
human rights. It is an act that aims not only to destroy the body but
to destroy a person's spirit, leaving a psychologically crippled victim
as a warning to others in their community.
Approximately 500,000 survivors of torture have found refuge in the
United States, with many more around the world. The survivors of this
terrible experience require treatment to recover from the effects of
torture and to rebuild their shattered lives.
Fortunately, we have the ability to provide such treatment. There are
30 torture treatment centers in the United States located in 16 states,
all helping former victims to recover from the trauma they experienced.
We in Minnesota are tremendously proud of the work of Minnesota's
Center for Victims of Torture, a world leader in administering this
kind of treatment.
The Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization Act will authorize $92
million in funding for both domestic and foreign treatment centers for
victims of torture. $50 million of the funding goes directly to
domestic programs. The remaining funds assist foreign treatment centers
through the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.N.
Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture.
This reauthorization comes at a critical time. With the liberation of
the people of Iraq and Afghanistan and other events around the world,
even more survivors of torture around the world are seeking treatment.
I look forward to the prompt consideration of this legislation and urge
my colleagues to support this and other effort to assist victims of
torture.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 365
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 ``Torture Victims Relief
Reauthorization Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR DOMESTIC
TREATMENT CENTERS FOR VICTIMS OF TORTURE.
Section 5(b)(1) of the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998
(22 U.S.C. 2152 note) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and 2005'' and inserting ``, 2005, 2006,
and 2007'';
(2) by striking ``2004 and'' and inserting ``2004,''; and
(3) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``,
$25,000,000 for the fiscal year 2006, and $25,000,000 for the
fiscal year 2007.''.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FOREIGN TREATMENT
CENTERS FOR VICTIMS OF TORTURE.
Section 4(b)(1) of the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998
(22 U.S.C. 2152 note) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and 2005'' and inserting ``, 2005, 2006,
and 2007'';
(2) by striking ``2004 and'' and inserting ``2004,''; and
(3) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``,
$12,000,000 for the fiscal year 2006, and $13,000,000 for the
fiscal year 2007.''.
SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES
CONTRIBUTION TO THE UNITED NATIONS VOLUNTARY
FUND FOR VICTIMS OF TORTURE.
Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
years 2006 and 2007 pursuant to chapter 3 of part I of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2221 et seq.),
there are authorized to be appropriated to the President for
a voluntary contribution to the United Nations Voluntary Fund
for Victims of Torture $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 and
$9,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.
______
By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mrs. Murray):
S. 368. A bill to provide assistance to reduce teen pregnancy, HIV/
AIDS, and other sexually transmitted diseases and to support healthy
adolescent development; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Responsible
Education About Life or ``REAL'' Act along with my cosponsors Senators
Kennedy, and Mrs. Murray.
The REAL Act aims to reduce adolescent pregnancy, HIV rates, and
other sexually transmitted diseases, by providing federal funds for
comprehensive sex education in schools. Comprehensive sex education is
medically accurate, age appropriate, education that includes
information about both contraception and abstinence. It is an approach
that doesn't hide important information from our kids.
For years, taxpayer dollars have been flooded into unproven
``abstinence-only'' programs--while no federal program is dedicated to
comprehensive sex education. Under the Bush Administration, federal
support for ``abstinence-only'' education has expanded rapidly.
The proof is in the numbers. In fiscal year 2004 the federal
government spent $138 million dollars on ``abstinence only'' programs.
In fiscal year 2005 the federal government increased funding for these
programs by $30 million dollars. This year President Bush is asking for
$206 million dollars for ``abstinence only'' education--a 50 percent
increase over the 2004 funding level. Would you like to know how much
money has the government devoted to comprehensive sex education
programs over this same time? Zero dollars.
Much of the taxpayer funds going to ``abstinence-only'' programs are
essentially being wasted. Teens need information, not censorship.
``Abstinence-only'' education only tells young people half the story,
and they need the full picture. These programs are not getting the job
done.
[[Page S1306]]
After years of ``abstinence only'' programs, the United States still
has the--highest rates of teen pregnancy in the industrialized world.
The American public knows what works. Parents do not want sexual
education programs limited to abstinence in schools. Even the Heritage
Foundation had to admit this when their own poll showed that ``75
percent of parents want teens to be taught about both abstinence and
contraception.'' Other polls show numbers as high as 93 percent in
support of high school programs that include information about
contraception.
The REAL Act also has the support of the National Education
Association (NEA), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the
American Nurses Association (ANA), the Child Welfare League of America
and more than 130 other medical and professional organizations. It is a
fact that teenagers who receive sex education that includes discussion
of contraception are more likely to delay sexual activity than those
who receive abstinence-only education. Comprehensive sex education
simply works better.
The stakes are high: of the 19 million cases of sexually transmitted
diseases every year in the United States, almost half of them strike
young people between the ages of 15 and 24. And each year in the United
States, about 20,000 young people are newly infected with HIV.
These aren't just numbers. These are our sons and daughters whose
health and well-being are jeopardized when ideology comes before sound
public policy. That is why we are introducing this legislation today.
It's time for a more balanced approach; it's time to protect out kids,
and it's time to get REAL. Our bill authorizes $206 million per year in
federal funds to states for comprehensive sexual education programs.
The REAL Act is step in a more effective direction. It brings sex
education up-to-date in a way that will reflect the serious issues and
real life situations millions of young people find themselves in every
year. Young people have a right to accurate and complete information
that could protect their health and even save their lives. I urge my
colleagues to support the REAL Act and make it possible to give young
people the tools to make safe and responsible decisions. Mr. President,
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. 368
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 ``Responsible Education About
Life Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds as follows:
(1) The American Medical Association (``AMA''), the
American Nurses Association (``ANA''), the American Academy
of Pediatrics (``AAP''), the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists (``ACOG''), the American
Public Health Association (``APHA''), and the Society of
Adolescent Medicine (``SAM''), support responsible sexuality
education that includes information about both abstinence and
contraception.
(2) Recent scientific reports by the Institute of Medicine,
the American Medical Association and the Office on National
AIDS Policy stress the need for sexuality education that
includes messages about abstinence and provides young people
with information about contraception for the prevention of
teen pregnancy, HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted
diseases (``STDs'').
(3) Research shows that teenagers who receive sexuality
education that includes discussion of contraception are more
likely than those who receive abstinence-only messages to
delay sexual activity and to use contraceptives when they do
become sexually active.
(4) Comprehensive sexuality education programs respect the
diversity of values and beliefs represented in the community
and will complement and augment the sexuality education
children receive from their families.
(5) The median age of puberty is 13 years and the average
age of marriage is over 26 years old. American teens need
access to full, complete, and medically and factually
accurate information regarding sexuality, including
contraception, STD/HIV prevention, and abstinence.
(6) Although teen pregnancy rates are decreasing, there are
still between 750,000 and 850,000 teen pregnancies each year.
Between 75 and 90 percent of teen pregnancies among 15- to
19-year olds are unintended.
(7) Studies estimate that 50 to 75 percent of the reduction
in adolescent pregnancy rates is attributable to improved
contraceptive use; the remainder to increased abstinence.
(8) More than eight out of ten Americans believe that young
people should have information about abstinence and
protecting themselves from unplanned pregnancies and sexually
transmitted diseases.
(9) United States teens and young adults acquire an
estimated 4,000,000 sexually transmitted infections each
year. By age 25, at least 1 of every 2 sexually active people
will have contracted a sexually transmitted disease.
(10) More than 2 young people in the United States are
infected with HIV every hour of every day. African American
and Hispanic youth have been disproportionately affected by
the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Although about 15 percent of the
adolescent population (ages 13 to 19) in the United States is
African American, nearly 60 percent of AIDS cases through
2002 among 13- to 19-year olds were among African Americans.
Hispanics comprise nearly 16 percent of the adolescent
population (ages 13 to 19) in the United States and 22
percent of reported adolescent AIDS cases through June 2002.
SEC. 3. ASSISTANCE TO REDUCE TEEN PREGNANCY, HIV/AIDS, AND
OTHER SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES AND TO
SUPPORT HEALTHY ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT.
(a) In General.--Each eligible State shall be entitled to
receive from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, for
each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2010, a grant to
conduct programs of family life education, including
education on both abstinence and contraception for the
prevention of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted
diseases, including HIV/AIDS.
(b) Requirements for Family Life Programs.--For purposes of
this Act, a program of family life education is a program
that--
(1) is age-appropriate and medically accurate;
(2) does not teach or promote religion;
(3) teaches that abstinence is the only sure way to avoid
pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases;
(4) stresses the value of abstinence while not ignoring
those young people who have had or are having sexual
intercourse;
(5) provides information about the health benefits and side
effects of all contraceptives and barrier methods as a means
to prevent pregnancy;
(6) provides information about the health benefits and side
effects of all contraceptives and barrier methods as a means
to reduce the risk of contracting sexually transmitted
diseases, including HIV/AIDS;
(7) encourages family communication about sexuality between
parent and child;
(8) teaches young people the skills to make responsible
decisions about sexuality, including how to avoid unwanted
verbal, physical, and sexual advances and how not to make
unwanted verbal, physical, and sexual advances; and
(9) teaches young people how alcohol and drug use can
affect responsible decisionmaking.
(c) Additional Activities.--In carrying out a program of
family life education, a State may expend a grant under
subsection (a) to carry out educational and motivational
activities that help young people--
(1) gain knowledge about the physical, emotional,
biological, and hormonal changes of adolescence and
subsequent stages of human maturation;
(2) develop the knowledge and skills necessary to ensure
and protect their sexual and reproductive health from
unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease,
including HIV/AIDS throughout their lifespan;
(3) gain knowledge about the specific involvement of and
male responsibility in sexual decisionmaking;
(4) develop healthy attitudes and values about adolescent
growth and development, body image, gender roles, racial and
ethnic diversity, sexual orientation, and other subjects;
(5) develop and practice healthy life skills including
goal-setting, decisionmaking, negotiation, communication, and
stress management;
(6) promote self-esteem and positive interpersonal skills
focusing on relationship dynamics, including, but not limited
to, friendships, dating, romantic involvement, marriage and
family interactions; and
(7) prepare for the adult world by focusing on educational
and career success, including developing skills for
employment preparation, job seeking, independent living,
financial self-sufficiency, and workplace productivity.
SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that while States are not
required to provide matching funds, they are encouraged to do
so.
SEC. 5. EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--For the purpose of evaluating the
effectiveness of programs of family life education carried
out with a grant under section 3, evaluations of such program
shall be carried out in accordance with subsections (b) and
(c).
(b) National Evaluation.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide for a national
evaluation of a representative sample of programs of family
life education carried out with grants under section 3. A
condition for the receipt of such a grant is that the State
involved agree to cooperate with the evaluation. The purposes
of the national evaluation shall be the determination of--
[[Page S1307]]
(A) the effectiveness of such programs in helping to delay
the initiation of sexual intercourse and other high-risk
behaviors;
(B) the effectiveness of such programs in preventing
adolescent pregnancy;
(C) the effectiveness of such programs in preventing
sexually transmitted disease, including HIV/AIDS;
(D) the effectiveness of such programs in increasing
contraceptive knowledge and contraceptive behaviors when
sexual intercourse occurs; and
(E) a list of best practices based upon essential
programmatic components of evaluated programs that have led
to success in subparagraphs (A) through (D).
(2) Report.--A report providing the results of the national
evaluation under paragraph (1) shall be submitted to the
Congress not later than March 31, 2009, with an interim
report provided on a yearly basis at the end of each fiscal
year.
(c) Individual State Evaluations.--
(1) In general.--A condition for the receipt of a grant
under section 3 is that the State involved agree to provide
for the evaluation of the programs of family education
carried out with the grant in accordance with the following:
(A) The evaluation will be conducted by an external,
independent entity.
(B) The purposes of the evaluation will be the
determination of--
(i) the effectiveness of such programs in helping to delay
the initiation of sexual intercourse and other high-risk
behaviors;
(ii) the effectiveness of such programs in preventing
adolescent pregnancy;
(iii) the effectiveness of such programs in preventing
sexually transmitted disease, including HIV/AIDS; and
(iv) the effectiveness of such programs in increasing
contraceptive knowledge and contraceptive behaviors when
sexual intercourse occurs.
(2) Use of grant.--A condition for the receipt of a grant
under section 3 is that the State involved agree that not
more than 10 percent of the grant will be expended for the
evaluation under paragraph (1).
SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act:
(1) The term ``eligible State'' means a State that submits
to the Secretary an application for a grant under section 3
that is in such form, is made in such manner, and contains
such agreements, assurances, and information as the Secretary
determines to be necessary to carry out this Act.
(2) The term ``HIV/AIDS'' means the human immunodeficiency
virus, and includes acquired immune deficiency syndrome.
(3) The term ``medically accurate'', with respect to
information, means information that is supported by research,
recognized as accurate and objective by leading medical,
psychological, psychiatric, and public health organizations
and agencies, and where relevant, published in peer review
journals.
(4) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Health
and Human Services.
SEC. 7. APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--For the purpose of carrying out this Act,
there is authorized to be appropriated $206,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
(b) Allocations.--Of the amounts appropriated under
subsection (a) for a fiscal year--
(1) not more than 7 percent may be used for the
administrative expenses of the Secretary in carrying out this
Act for that fiscal year; and
(2) not more than 10 percent may be used for the national
evaluation under section 5(b).
____________________