[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).

                          ____________________