[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 18 (Thursday, February 17, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1625-S1679]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself and Mr. Bond):
S. 414. A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to protect
the right of Americans to vote through the prevention of voter fraud,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Voter
Protection Act of 2005, and I am pleased to be joined again by my good
friend from Missouri, Senator Bond. I also acknowledge the deep
interest and expertise of the occupant of the chair in this important
subject of how we have increasingly honest elections in our country.
In the wake of the 2000 election, as chairman of the Rules and
Administration Committee, and then its ranking member, Senators Bond,
Dodd, and I worked together to address the problems brought to light in
the 2000 elections. In January of 2001, I introduced the first of what
would become several election reform bills. Nearly 2 years later, all
the hard work and long hours paid off with the President of the United
States signing the Help America Vote Act of 2002, commonly referred to
as HAVA.
This legislation passed with near unanimous support in both Chambers.
HAVA set forth several minimum standards for States to meet and was
coupled with a new Election Assistance Commission to provide advice and
distribute $3 billion to date. The goal was and is to make it easier to
vote and harder to cheat.
The 2004 elections were the first conducted under HAVA. There are
reports of many successes attributable to HAVA, including a new Cal-
Tech/MIT study, which found a decrease in the residual vote rate, or
ballots that did not record a vote for President. Further, there were
new requirements for identification while registering or, at the polls,
new voting technology, statewide databases, and a broad Federal
requirement for the casting of provisional ballots.
HAVA was a tremendous success, but all of the cosponsors were careful
to avoid a complete Federal takeover of elections. As was stated by
prominent election expert Doug Lewis, after conducting elections for
over 200 years, State and local officials didn't become stupid in just
one election. Throughout the bill, we remained respectful of the States
rights and left methods of implementation to the discretion of States.
Today, we bring before this body a new piece of legislation which
builds upon the successes of HAVA and clarifies some of the
misinterpretations that occurred in the last election. This bill
provides State and local officials more tools to ensure every eligible
voter casts their vote, but make sure it is counted only once.
First, the most important part of this election process is an
accurate and secure registration list. This legislation clarifies
several provisions related to ensuring that those who register are
legally entitled to do so, do so only once, and in only one State.
Further, we address the problem brought about by voter registration
drives which dumped impossible numbers of new registrations on the last
day of registration. The bill ensures that only real-life, eligible
Mary Poppins registers to vote.
Second, the process of actually casting a ballot is sacred to all
Americans. The legislation will ensure accurate poll lists and photo
identification at the polls, and will reaffirm HAVA's goal of
permitting State law to govern counting provisional ballots.
Further, for absentee ballots, having them returned by election day
and requiring authentication of their request is critical. Thus, if a
real, eligible, registered Mary Poppins goes to the polls, she can show
identification and vote--but just once.
Third, grant money will be available to pay for photo identification
for those who don't have one or cannot afford one. The Election
Assistance Commission will conduct a pilot program for the use of
indelible ink at the polls, reminiscent of the Iraqi elections on
January 30. We were all moved by the picture we saw from the Iraqi
elections of voters proudly showing their ink-sustained fingers. Aside
from being an act of national pride, it was also an act to ensure that
all those who voted did so only once.
Lastly, the 2004 elections saw new tactics which must be addressed by
new criminal penalties for buying and conspiring to buy voter
registrations. Further, the destruction or damaging of property with
intent to impede voting is something that must be prosecuted.
Again, I am proud to have been the Senate Republican sponsor of the
Help America Vote Act of 2002 and believe it has and will continue to
improve the conduct of elections in this country. But much more needs
to be done. The Voter Protection Act of 2005 builds upon that important
piece of legislation to combat voter fraud and ensure the integrity of
the entire election process.
I know Senator Bond, a cosponsor, is on the way to the floor. I
commend him for his important contribution to HAVA. I repeat my earlier
comments about the occupant of the chair and his expertise and interest
in this issue. We look forward to working with both of them to advance
a piece of legislation for America that would make it easier to vote
and harder to cheat.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague
Senator McConnell in introducing the
[[Page S1626]]
Voter Protection Act of 2005. This legislation builds upon the progress
made by the Help America Vote Act toward our goal of making it easier
to vote and harder to cheat, while addressing some additional issues
that came to light during the previous election.
This legislation will clarify the intent of our previous bill and try
to alleviate some of the administrative burdens and misguided policies
placed on dedicated, hard-working election workers by previous
congressional intrusions into the State functioning of running
elections.
Make no mistake about it, record numbers of Americans went to the
polls in 2004. The overwhelming number of Americans were greeted by
informed, dedicated, and properly trained election workers and were
able to cast their ballot in a timely manner and in a secure
environment. In Missouri, my home State, the elections were extremely
well run. Large numbers of voters were accommodated at the polls in a
timely fashion, and very few questions have been raised about
administration or integrity.
I believe our recent enactment of HAVA, the Help American Vote Act,
helped make it easier for States and localities to administer their
elections.
I might add that once again Missouri voters voted on punch cards.
Contrary to the bogeyman of hanging chads and other problems we heard
about in the past, punch cards have served the voters of Missouri well,
proving that trained poll workers, coupled with informed voters, can
participate in clean and fair elections using punchcard voting
machines.
I live in Audrain County, MO, which is a rural county with a wide
diversity. It is very average and representative, although I think it
is an outstanding county. I asked the county clerk: How many problems
have you had with these punchcard voters? We have the whole range of
voters, a very wide diversity. She told me in her memory and the memory
of those in the county clerk's office, they had never had a single
problem with hanging chads or punchcard machines.
Some people are saying the Help America Vote Act required getting rid
of punchcard machines. It did not do that. Let's be clear, that is not
required by the Help America Vote Act.
The smoothness leading up to the elections in Missouri was not the
case everywhere. I continue to have concerns about the registration
process and voter registration lists. Election officials are still
laboring under an unnecessarily burdensome system heaped upon them by
the motor voter bill. Motor voter required States to accept anonymous
mail registration cards without supporting documents and voter
registration cards from election drives. Motor voter prohibited
authentication of registrations, making it extremely difficult for
names to be removed from voter rolls, such as Mickey Mouse, the
deceased, or those who had left the State years before. That is why to
many of us, motor voter had become auto-fraudo, and we took steps in
the Help America Vote Act to change that.
The evidence is still overwhelming that this poor policy continues to
result in tremendous administrative burdens on our election officials,
with registration lists being bloated and inaccurate but limited
recourse for election officials to address the situation. All this
makes it more difficult to run clean, fair, and accurate elections.
The Help America Vote Act required minimum identification for first-
time voters who take advantage of the mail-in voter registration
procedures. While the law is clear, some States chose to find ways
around this reasonable requirement. This bill makes it clear that
voters who do not register before a government official in person will
have to provide the ID requirement. We heard reports of partisan
election workers who brought in bundles of voter registration cards,
and when they told the governmental election officials they had seen
the voter ID, those cards were accepted. Anybody who would accept that
ought to be buying the 14th Street bridge. To say somebody who is not a
government official and is partisan is going to fulfill the
governmental requirements is a stretch too far.
Furthermore, in some Federal elections, I think it is past time to go
to a full ID provision. So this legislation requires voters in Federal
elections to present identification at the polls while creating a
program to ensure that all voters have access to an ID if they cannot
afford one.
We now ask our citizens to provide a photo ID for so many tasks of
everyday life. To provide it once more for election officials on
election day seems a small request in order to help ensure our
elections are fair and accurate.
If a person does not have a photo ID and cannot afford to procure
one, our bill provides the requirement and the resources to ensure that
one is provided.
Let's make sure every legal vote gets counted, and only the legal
votes and only one vote per person, only one vote per human. No dogs,
please.
The practice of dropping off registration cards in bulk at the
registration deadline continues. It is proving to be a huge burden on
election officials. The practice of submitting cards for fictitious
people, deceased, and ineligible voters is alive and well, so to speak.
Also, a troubling practice by some voter registration groups has come
to light--registrations not being delivered to the election
authorities. Whether intentional, through oversight or neglect, this is
simply unacceptable. Would-be voters place their faith in those
conducting registration drives, and the States accept the registration
drives will be conducted on the level. Sloppy practices can only result
in people being denied the right to vote. So there must be oversight.
This legislation will bring some accountability to voter registration
drives while relieving some of the burdens on election authorities by
mass dumping of registrations.
I call on our law enforcement officials, the Department of Justice,
and our U.S. attorneys to review the process and look at those areas
where fraud has been suggested to find out if it is prosecutable, if
Federal criminal procedure is required and warranted. I can tell you
that we will pass all the laws in the world, but until we see some
voter fraud proponents going to jail, spending time in the cells, we
are not going to have the effect this bill and our previous bill
anticipated.
We need to clean up the registration process by permitting States to
use Social Security numbers. I think this bill brings some sense to
voter rules by clarifying the provision in motor voter for name
removal. The bill also includes a provision for dealing in a reasonable
manner with registration cards that are incomplete.
We found in the past, if you did not specifically indicate you were a
U.S. citizen, the courts refused to prosecute those knowing they were
not eligible to vote because they were not citizens; they could not be
prosecuted. Now there is a specific requirement that you indicate you
are a U.S. citizen, eligible to vote. If you do not do that, the card
should not be accepted, and if you falsely certify you are a U.S.
citizen, you ought to be prosecuted.
As we expressed throughout the debates on Help America Vote Act,
minimum standard requirements for elections are to be implemented by
the State. On provisional voting, the language is explicit. Questions
on the implementation of provisional balloting are for State
legislators and election officials to decide. But as is too often the
case in this country, what cannot be achieved through legislation will
be pursued in the courtroom. Some 65 lawsuits were pursued to overturn
decisions to preserve the precinct system used at the State level. This
was a conscious effort to screw up the elections. Fortunately, the
courts got it right. They overruled them 65 times. But there will be
more litigation. Therefore, this legislation clarifies further the
clear language of HAVA that the decision on the precinct system and
decision on the proper polling place for voters is a State question.
The goal of the lawsuits, as I said, seemed to introduce complete
chaos which would have ensued were voters allowed simply to vote
anywhere they wanted. Additionally, those voters would not have been
able to vote in local elections and balloting initiatives. The purpose
of the suits did not make sense, but they were filed anyhow. The
arguments for throwing out State law made less sense. It is simply the
height of illogic to argue on one hand that States should permissively
allow voters to cast ballots from anywhere in the State they chose,
only to
[[Page S1627]]
complain later that the number of election machines at a polling place
was inadequate.
Many people lodging this complaint also complained it rained on
election day. Sorry, we cannot change that by law. So their concerns
must be evaluated accordingly. Among other things, the precinct system
allows election officials to plan for election day, assign voters to
voting places in manageable numbers, and dispatch the proper level of
resources.
Once again, after election day, the newspapers were filled with
stories pointing out irregularities on election day. The election day
problems have grown out of bloated and inaccurate voting lists and
sloppy registration procedures. The stories clearly establish that
sloppy laws, poor lists, and chaos at the polls invite efforts to cheat
on election day. That is unacceptable to voters and to candidates and
people who depend upon a free, fair system of democracy. If a voter has
his or her vote canceled by a vote that should never have been cast,
whether cast by fraud or ineligible voter, he or she has lost the civil
right to be heard and to have the vote counted. It is a
disenfranchisement of the voter. It also is a grave offense to the
candidates who spend countless amounts of their time and their
supporters' resources on elections.
Our goal should be elections that are free of suspicion, doubt, and
cynicism about the results. There are steps that remain to be taken to
ensure that elections are conducted in a sound and secure manner so
that the integrity of the ballot box remains beyond doubt. These simple
steps will begin to clean up the mess created in the registration
process, while taking away the remains of enticements to game the
system.
I look forward to the debate on the floor about these reasonable
measures. I commend our deputy majority leader for his work on this
effort, and look forward to discussing this and pursuing it with our
colleagues.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if I can very briefly say to my good
friend and colleague from Missouri, it is a pleasure to team up with
him once again in our pursuit of better elections in this country and
to report to him on the prosecution front there actually was a
conviction. I know the occupant of the Chair is interested in this as
well. There actually was a conviction in my State for vote fraud--two
of them--over the last 6 months. We will see whether that has an impact
on habits of many decades that exist in my State and I know in several
parts of the State of Missouri as well.
I congratulate the Senator for his statement.
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I salute my two colleagues, Senator
McConnell and Senator Bond, for their leadership in this very important
area, along with Senator Dodd. They spearheaded the improvements that
were made to our election, registration, and voting procedures in the
aftermath of the 2000 election difficulties. Clearly, the experience
over last November's election shows that we have more work before us
that has to be bipartisan. They have shown strong leadership, combined
with others, and I look forward to being part of that as a member of
the Senate Rules Committee. Senator Lott, the chairman of that
committee, will hold hearings in the very near future on this and other
proposals. I believe it is imperative that we get that process underway
so, as Senator Bond knows, every American knows they have the right to
vote, and vote expeditiously, and every one of those votes is going to
be counted.
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. 414
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 ``Voter
Protection 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.
TITLE I--VOTER REGISTRATION AND MAINTENANCE OF OFFICIAL LISTS OF
REGISTERED VOTERS
Sec. 101. Requirements for voters who register other than in person
with an officer or employee of a State or local
government entity.
Sec. 102. Removal of registrants from voting rolls for failure to vote.
Sec. 103. Use of social security numbers for voter registration and
election administration.
Sec. 104. Synchronization of State databases.
Sec. 105. Incomplete registration forms.
Sec. 106. Requirements for submission of registration forms by third
parties.
TITLE II--VOTING
Sec. 201. Voter rolls.
Sec. 202. Return of absentee ballots.
Sec. 203. Identification requirement.
Sec. 204. Clarification of counting of provisional ballots.
Sec. 205. Applications for absentee ballots.
Sec. 206. Pilot program for use of indelible ink at polling places.
TITLE III--CRIMINAL PENALTIES
Sec. 301. Penalty for making expenditures to persons to register.
Sec. 302. Penalty for conspiracy to influence voting.
Sec. 303. Penalty for destruction of property with intent to impede the
act of voting.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) There is a need for Congress to encourage and enable
every eligible and registered American to vote.
(2) There is a need for Congress to protect the franchise
of all Americans by rooting out the potential for fraud in
the electoral system.
(3) There is a need for Congress to provide States the
tools necessary to protect against fraud in multiple,
fictitious, and ineligible voter registrations.
(4) There is a need for Congress to ensure completed and
valid voter registration forms are returned for processing so
as to not disenfranchise voters who believe they have been
properly registered.
(5) There is a need for Congress to provide States the
tools necessary to protect against any American casting more
than one ballot and ensuring poll workers are equipped to
identify those who voted prior to election day.
(6) There is a need for Congress to ensure the accuracy,
integrity, and fairness of every American election.
(7) There is a need for Congress to ensure the protection
of every American's franchise is carried out in a uniform and
nondiscriminatory manner.
TITLE I--VOTER REGISTRATION AND MAINTENANCE OF OFFICIAL LISTS OF
REGISTERED VOTERS
SEC. 101. REQUIREMENTS FOR VOTERS WHO REGISTER OTHER THAN IN
PERSON WITH AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF A STATE
OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITY.
(a) In General.--
(1) Application of requirements to voters registering other
than in person.--Subparagraph (A) of section 303(b)(1) of the
Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15483(b)(1)(A)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(A) the individual registered to vote in a jurisdiction
in a manner other than appearing in person before an officer
or employee of a State or local government entity; and''.
(2) Meaning of in person.--Paragraph (1) of section 303(b)
of such Act is amended by inserting at the end the following:
``For purposes of subparagraph (A), an individual shall not
be considered to have registered in person if the
registration is submitted to an officer or employee of a
State or local government entity by a person other than the
person whose name appears on the voter registration form.''.
(3) Conforming amendments.--
(A) The heading for subsection (b) of section 303 of such
Act is amended by striking ``who register by mail'' and
inserting ``who do not register in person''.
(B) The heading for section 303 of such Act is amended by
striking ``requirements for voters who register by mail'' and
inserting ``voter registration requirements''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply on and after January 1, 2006.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Paragraph (2) of section 303(d) of the Help America
Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15483(d)(2)) is amended by
inserting at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) Applicability with respect to individuals who
register other than in person.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs
(A) and (B)--
``(i) each State and jurisdiction shall be required to
comply with the provisions of subsection (b) with respect to
individuals who register to vote in a jurisdiction in a
manner other than appearing in person before an officer or
employee of a State or local government entity on and after
January 1, 2006; and
``(ii) the provisions of subsection (b) shall apply to any
individual who registers to vote in a jurisdiction in a
manner other than appearing in person before an officer or
employee of a State or local government on and after January
1, 2006.''.
(B) The heading for paragraph (2) of section 303(d) of such
Act is amended by striking ``who register by mail''.
[[Page S1628]]
(C) Subparagraph (A) of section 303(d)(2) of such Act is
amended by inserting ``with respect to individuals who
register by mail'' after ``subsection (b)''.
(D) Subparagraph (B) of section 303(d)(2) of such Act is
amended by inserting ``by mail'' after ``registers to vote''.
SEC. 102. REMOVAL OF REGISTRANTS FROM VOTING ROLLS FOR
FAILURE TO VOTE.
(a) In General.--Section 8 of the National Voter
Registration Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6) is amended by
redesignating subsections (h), (i), and (j) as subsections
(i), (j), and (k), respectively, and by inserting after
subsection (g) the following new subsection:
``(h) Failure to Vote.--Except as otherwise provided in
subsection (d), a State shall not remove the name of a
registrant from the official list of eligible voters in
elections for Federal office on the ground that the
registrant has failed to vote unless--
``(1) the registrant has not voted or appeared to vote in 2
consecutive general elections for Federal office; and
``(2)(A) the registrant has not notified the applicable
registrar (in person or in writing) during the period
described in subparagraph (A) that the individual intends to
remain registered in the registrar's jurisdiction; and
``(B) the applicable registrar has sent a notice which
meets the requirements of paragraph (d)(2) and the notice is
undeliverable.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 8(a)(4) of the National Voter Registration Act
of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6(a)(4)) is amended by striking
``or'' at the end of subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or'' at
the end of subparagraph (B), and by adding at the end the
following new subparagraph:
``(C) a failure to vote in 2 consecutive general elections
for Federal office, in accordance with subsection (h) of this
section;''.
(2) Section 8(b) of the National Voter Registration Act of
1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6(b)) is amended by striking ``roll
for elections for Federal office'' and all that follows and
inserting the following ``roll for elections for Federal
office shall be uniform, nondiscriminatory, and in compliance
with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973 et
seq.).''.
SEC. 103. USE OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS FOR VOTER
REGISTRATION AND ELECTION ADMINISTRATION.
(a) In General.--Section 205(c)(2) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 405(c)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subparagraph:
``(I)(i) It is the policy of the United States that any
State (or political subdivision thereof) may, in the
administration of any voter registration or other election
law, use the social security account numbers issued by the
Commissioner of Social Security for the purpose of
establishing the identification of individuals affected by
such law, and may require any individual who is, or appears
to be, so affected to furnish to such State (or political
subdivision thereof) or any agency thereof having
administrative responsibility for the law involved, the
social security account number (or numbers, if such
individual has more than one such number) issued to such
individual by the Commissioner of Social Security.
``(ii) For purposes of clause (i), an agency of a State (or
political subdivision thereof) charged with the
administration of any voter registration or other election
law that did not use the social security account number for
identification under a law or regulation adopted before
January 1, 2005, may require an individual to disclose his or
her social security number to such agency solely for the
purpose of administering the laws referred to in such clause.
``(iii) If, and to the extent that, any provision of
Federal law enacted before the date of enactment of the Voter
Protection Act of 2005 is inconsistent with the policy set
forth in clause (i), such provision shall, on and after the
date of the enactment of such Act, be null, void, and of no
effect.''.
(b) Construction.--Nothing in this section or the amendment
made by this section may be construed to supersede any
privacy guarantee under any Federal or State law that applies
with respect to a social security number.
SEC. 104. SYNCHRONIZATION OF STATE DATABASES.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 303(a)(1) of
the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15483(a)(1)(A))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(ix) The computerized list shall be in a format which
allows for sharing and synchronization with other State
computerized lists.''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 303(d) of the
Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15483(d)(1)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Synchronization of databases.--Each State and
jurisdiction shall be required to comply with the
requirements of subsection (a)(1)(A)(ix) on and after January
1, 2007.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Subparagraph (A) of section
303(d)(1) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C.
15483(d)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``subparagraph (B)''
and inserting ``subparagraphs (B) and (C)''.
SEC. 105. INCOMPLETE REGISTRATION FORMS.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 303(b)(4) of
the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15483(b)(4)(B))
is amended to read as follows:
``(B) Incomplete forms.--If an applicant for voter
registration fails to answer the question included on the
mail voter registration form pursuant to subparagraph (A)(i),
the registrar shall return the incomplete voter registration
form to the applicant and provide the applicant with an
opportunity to complete the registration form.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to any individual who registers to vote on or
after January 1, 2006.
SEC. 106. REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBMISSION OF REGISTRATION FORMS
BY THIRD PARTIES.
(a) In General.--Section 303 of the Help America Vote Act
of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15483(b)), as amended by this Act, is
amended by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e) and
by inserting after subsection (c) the following new
subsection:
``(d) Requirements for Submission or Registration Forms by
Third Parties.--Notwithstanding section 8(a) of the National
Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6(a)), no
State shall register any person to vote in an election for
Federal office if the registration form is submitted--
``(1) by a person other than the person whose name appears
on such form; and
``(2) more than 3 days after the date on which such form
was signed by the registrant.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 906(a) of the Help
America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15545(a)) is amended by
striking ``section 303(b)'' and inserting ``subsections (b)
and (d) of section 303''.
(c) Effective Date.--Subsection (e) of section 303 of the
Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15483(d)), as
redesignated by subsection (a), is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Requirement for submission of registration forms by
third parties.--Each State shall be required to comply with
the requirements of subsection (d) on and after January 1,
2006.''.
TITLE II--VOTING
SEC. 201. VOTER ROLLS.
(a) In General.--Title III of the Help America Vote Act of
2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481 et seq.) is amended by redesignating
sections 304 and 305 as sections 305 and 306, respectively,
and by inserting after section 303 the following new section:
``SEC. 304. VOTER ROLLS.
``(a) In General.--If a State allows early voting or
absentee voting for a Federal office, then such State shall
be required to ensure that the voter rolls at each polling
location on the day of the election accurately and
affirmatively indicate--
``(1) which individuals have voted prior to such day; and
``(2) which individuals have requested an absentee ballot
for such election.
``(b) Rule for Persons Not Voting in Person.--For purposes
of subsection (a)(1), a State shall affirmatively indicate
that an individual who has not voted in person has voted if
the State has received a ballot from such individual prior to
the day of the election.
``(c) Effective Date.--Each State and jurisdiction shall be
required to comply with the requirements of this section on
and after January 1, 2006.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 401 of the Help America
Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15511) is amended by striking
``and 303'' and inserting ``303, and 304''.
SEC. 202. RETURN OF ABSENTEE BALLOTS.
(a) In General.--Title III of the Help America Vote Act of
2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481 et seq.), as amended by this Act, is
amended by redesignating sections 305 and 306 as sections 306
and 307, respectively, and by inserting after section 304 the
following new section.
``SEC. 305. RETURN OF ABSENTEE BALLOTS.
``(a) In General.--Except as provided in the Uniformed and
Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, each absentee ballot
cast for a Federal office must be received by the State by
the close of business on the day of the election in order to
be counted as a valid ballot.
``(b) Effective Date.--Each State and jurisdiction shall be
required to comply with the requirements of subsection (a) on
and after January 1, 2006.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 401 of the Help America
Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15511), as amended by this Act,
is amended by striking ``and 304'' and inserting ``304, and
305''.
SEC. 203. IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
(a) Requirement for Voters Who Register by Mail and Other
Than in Person.--
(1) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 303(b)(2) of
the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15483(b)(2)(A))
is amended--
(A) in clause (i)--
(i) by inserting ``issued by a government entity'' after
``identification'' in subclause (I); and
(ii) by striking ``current utility bill, bank statement,
government check, paycheck, or other'' in subclause (II) and
inserting ``recent''; and
(B) in clause (ii) --
(i) by inserting ``issued by a government entity'' after
``identification'' in subclause (I); and
(ii) by striking ``current utility bill, bank statement,
government check, paycheck, or other'' in subclause (II) and
inserting ``recent''.
(2) Inapplicability.--Paragraph (3) of section 303(b) of
the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15483(b)(3)) is
amended--
[[Page S1629]]
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``part of such'' and inserting ``a
requirement for a valid'';
(ii) by inserting ``issued by a government entity'' after
``identification'' in clause (i); and
(iii) by striking ``current utility bill, bank statement,
government check, paycheck, or other'' in clause (ii) and
inserting ``recent''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ``with such'' and
inserting ``as a requirement for a valid''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to individuals who register to vote on and after
January 1, 2006, and each State and jurisdiction shall be
required to comply with the requirements of section 303(b) of
the Help America Vote Act of 2002, as amended by this
section, on and after January 1, 2006.
(b) New Requirement for Individuals Voting in Person.--
(1) In general.--Title III of the Help America Vote Act of
2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481 et seq.), as amended by this Act, is
amended by redesignating sections 306 and 307 as sections 307
and 308, respectively, and by inserting after section 305 the
following new section:
``SEC. 306. IDENTIFICATION OF VOTERS AT THE POLLS.
``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding the requirements of
section 303(b), each State shall require individuals casting
ballots in an election for Federal office in person to
present a current valid photo identification issued by a
governmental entity before voting.
``(b) Effective Date.--Each State shall be required to
comply with the requirements of subsection (a) on and after
January 1, 2006.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 401 of the Help America
Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15511), as amended by this Act,
is amended by striking ``and 305'' and inserting ``305, and
306''.
(c) Funding for Free Photo Identifications.--Subtitle D of
title II of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C.
15401 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``PART 7--PHOTO IDENTIFICATION
``SEC. 297. PAYMENTS FOR FREE PHOTO IDENTIFICATION.
``(a) In General.--In addition to any other payments made
under this subtitle, the Election Assistance Commission shall
make payments to States to promote the issuance to registered
voters of free photo identifications for purposes of meeting
the identification requirements of sections 303(b)(2) and
306.
``(b) Eligibility.--A State is eligible to receive a grant
under this part if it submits to the Commission (at such time
and in such form as the Commission may require) an
application containing--
``(1) a statement that the State intends to comply with the
requirements of section 303(b) and section 306; and
``(2) a description of how the State intends to use the
payment under this part to provide registered voters with
free photo identifications to meet the requirements of such
sections.
``(c) Use of Funds.--A State receiving a payment under this
part shall use the payment only to provide free photo
identification cards to registered voters who do not have an
identification card that meets the requirements of sections
303(b) and 306.
``(d) Allocation of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--The amount of the grant made to a State
under this part for a year shall be equal to the product of--
``(A) the total amount appropriated for payments under this
part for the year under section 298; and
``(B) an amount equal to--
``(i) the voting age population of the State (as reported
in the most recent decennial census); divided by
``(ii) the total voting age of all eligible States which
submit an application for payments under this part (as
reported in the most recent decennial census).
``SEC. 298. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``(a) In General.--In addition to any other amounts
authorized to be appropriated under this subtitle, there are
authorized to be appropriated $25,000,000 for fiscal year
2006 and such sums as are necessary for each subsequent
fiscal year for the purpose of making payments under section
297.
``(b) Availability.--Any amounts appropriated pursuant to
the authority of this section shall remain available until
expended.''.
SEC. 204. CLARIFICATION OF COUNTING OF PROVISIONAL BALLOTS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (4) of section 302(a) of the
Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15482(a)(4)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new sentence:
``For purposes of this paragraph, the determination of
whether an individual is eligible under State law to vote
shall take into account any provision of State law with
respect to the polling site at which the individual is
required to vote.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--
(1) Paragraph (1) of section 302(a) of the Help America
Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15482(a)(1)) is amended to read
as follows:
``(1) An election official at the polling place shall--
``(A) notify the individual that the individual may cast a
provisional ballot in that election; and
``(B) in the case of an individual who the election
official asserts is not eligible to vote under State law
because the individual is at an incorrect polling site,
direct the individual to the appropriate polling site.''.
(2) Paragraph (2) of section 302(a) of the Help America
Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15482(a)(2)) is amended by
striking ``The individual'' and inserting ``Notwithstanding
the requirement of paragraph (1)(B), the individual''.
SEC. 205. APPLICATIONS FOR ABSENTEE BALLOTS.
(a) In General.--Title III of the Help America Vote Act of
2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481 et seq.), as amended by this Act, is
amended by redesignating sections 307 and 308 as sections 308
and 309, respectively, and by inserting after section 306 the
following new section:
``SEC. 307. APPLICATIONS FOR ABSENTEE BALLOTS.
``(a) In General.--An application for an absentee ballot
for an election for Federal office may not be accepted and
processed by a State unless the application includes--
``(1) in the case of an applicant who has been issued a
current and valid driver's license, the applicant's driver's
license number; or
``(2) in the case of any other applicant--
``(A) a photo copy of a current and valid photo
identification issued by a government entity;
``(B) at least the last 4 digits of the applicant's social
security number; or
``(C) the number assigned to such individual under section
303(a)(5)(A)(ii).
``(b) Effective Date.--Each State shall be required to
comply with the requirements of subsection (a) on and after
January 1, 2006.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 401 of the Help America
Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15511), as amended by this Act,
is amended by striking ``and 306'' and inserting ``306, and
307''.
SEC. 206. PILOT PROGRAM FOR USE OF INDELIBLE INK AT POLLING
PLACES.
Subtitle D of title II of the Help America Vote Act of 2002
(42 U.S.C. 15401 et seq.), as amended by this Act, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``PART 8--PILOT PROGRAM FOR USE OF INDELIBLE INK AT POLLING PLACES
``SEC. 299. PILOT PROGRAM.
``(a) In General.--The Commission shall make grants to
States to carry out pilot programs under which each voter in
an election for Federal office in a State is marked with
indelible ink after submitting a ballot.
``(b) Eligibility.--A State is eligible to receive a grant
under this part if it submits to the Commission, at such time
and in such form as the Commission may require, an
application containing such information as the Commission may
require.
``(c) Report.--
``(1) In general.--Each State which receives a grant under
this part shall submit to the Commission a report describing
the activities carried out with the funds provided under the
grant.
``(2) Deadline.--A State shall submit the report required
under paragraph (1) not later than 60 days after the end of
the fiscal year for which the State received the grant which
is the subject of the report.
``SEC. 300. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
for grants under this part $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2006
and such sums as are necessary for each succeeding fiscal
year.
``(b) Availability.--Any amounts appropriated pursuant to
the authority of this section shall remain available, without
fiscal year limitation, until expended.''.
TITLE III--CRIMINAL PENALTIES
SEC. 301. PENALTY FOR MAKING EXPENDITURES TO PERSONS TO
REGISTER.
Section 597 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
inserting ``to register him to vote,'' after ``either''.
SEC. 302. PENALTY FOR CONSPIRACY TO INFLUENCE VOTING.
Section 597 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by
this Act, is amended by striking ``makes or offers to make''
and inserting ``makes, offers to make, or conspires to
make''.
SEC. 303. PENALTY FOR DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY WITH INTENT TO
IMPEDE THE ACT OF VOTING.
Section 594 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``Whoever''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Whoever destroys or damages any property with the
intent to prevent or impede an individual from voting in an
election for the office of President, Vice President,
Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the
House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of
Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, shall be fined under this
title, imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both.''.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
S. 415. A bill to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security Act
to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct
research on indicators of child well-being; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation
today know as the State Child Well-Being Research Act of 2005. This
bill is designed to enhance child well-being in every State by
collecting data on a State-by-State basis to provide information to
advocates and policy-makers
[[Page S1630]]
about the well-being of children. Developing a set of indicators and
measuring progress of child well-being deserves to be a priority.
My hope is to incorporate this important research initiative into the
welfare reform reauthorization package. I believe that the Senate
should reauthorize our welfare program, known as Temporary Assistance
to Needy Families, TANF, and we should do it this year. Chairman
Grassley's interest in a bipartisan process is very encouraging.
In 1996, Congress passed bold legislation to dramatically change our
welfare system, and I supported it. The driving force behind this
reform was to promote work and self-sufficiency for families and to
provide flexibility to States to achieve these goals. States have used
this flexibility to design different programs that work better for
families who rely on them.
Nine years later, it is obvious that we need State-by-State data on
child well-being to measure the results. The current Survey of Income
and Program Participation (SIPP) is used to evaluate the progress of
welfare, and it has been an important national longitudinal study
designed to provide rich, detailed data; the kinds of data most useful
to academic researchers. It does not, however, provide States with
good, timely data to help them more effectively accomplish the goals
set forth in welfare reform. This is why is makes sense to invest in
both types of surveys, the SIPP and this bill. As social policy and
flexibility shifts to the States, the data measuring its effects should
be specific.
This bill, the State Child Well Being Research Act of 2005, is
intended to fill this information gap by collecting timely, State-
specific data that can be used by policy-makers, researchers, and child
advocates to assess the well being of children. It would require that a
survey examine the physical and emotional health of children,
adequately represent the experiences of families in individual States,
be consistent across States, be collected annually, articulate results
in easy to understand terms, and focus on low-income children and
families.
The proposed legislation will provide data for all States, including
small rural States that cannot be covered under SIPP because the sample
size is too small. A modest investment in this bill would offer State
data for the twenty-three rural states of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas,
Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Moreover, data from a cross-sectional survey would be available to
State policy-makers on a far more timely basis than those of a national
longitudinal study, a matter of months instead of years.
Further, this bill avoids some of the other problems that plague the
current system by making data files easier to use and more readily
available. As a result, the information will be more useful for policy-
makers managing welfare reform and programs for children and families.
This legislation also offers the potential for the Health and Human
Service Department to partner with several private charitable
foundations, including the Annie E. Casey, John D. and Catherine T.
MacArthur, and McKnight foundations, who are interested in forming a
partnership to provide outreach and support and to guarantee that the
data collected would be broadly disseminated. This type of public-
private partnership helps to leverage additional resources for children
and families and increases the study's impact. Given the tight budget
we face, partnerships make sense.
I hope my colleagues will support this effort to learn about the
well-being of our children in rural States. 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. 415
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 ``State Child Well-Being
Research Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The well-being of children is a paramount concern for
our Nation and for every State, and most programs for
children and families are managed at the State or local
level.
(2) Child well-being varies over time and across social,
economic, and geographic groups, and can be affected by
changes in the circumstances of families, by the economy, by
the social and cultural environment, and by public policies
and programs at both the Federal and State level.
(3) States, including small States, need information about
child well-being that is specific to their State and that is
up-to-date, cost-effective, and consistent across States and
over time.
(4) Regular collection of child well-being information at
the State level is essential so that Federal and State
officials can track child well-being over time.
(5) Information on child well-being is necessary for all
States, particularly small States that do not have State-
level data in other federally supported data bases, such as
the Survey of Income and Program Participation.
(6) Telephone surveys of parents, on the other hand,
represent a relatively cost-effective strategy for obtaining
information on child well-being at the State level for all
States, including small States.
(7) Data from telephone surveys of the population are used
to monitor progress toward many important national goals,
including immunization of preschool children with the
National Immunization Survey, and the identification of
health care issues of children with special needs with the
National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs.
(8) A State-level telephone survey can provide information
on a range of topics, including children's social and
emotional development, education, health, safety, family
income, family employment, and child care. Information
addressing marriage and family structure can also be obtained
for families with children. Information obtained from such a
survey would not be available solely for children or families
participating in programs but would be representative of the
entire State population and consequently, would not only
inform welfare policymaking, but policymaking on a range of
other important issues, such as child care, child welfare,
and education.
SEC. 3. RESEARCH ON INDICATORS OF CHILD WELL-BEING.
Section 413 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 613) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(k) Indicators of Child Well-Being.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, through grants,
contracts, or interagency agreements shall develop
comprehensive indicators to assess child well-being in each
State.
``(2) Requirements.--
``(A) In general.--The indicators developed under paragraph
(1) shall include measures related to the following:
``(i) Education.
``(ii) Social and emotional development.
``(iii) Health and safety.
``(iv) Family well-being, such as family structure, income,
employment, child care arrangements, and family
relationships.
``(B) Other requirements.--The data collected with respect
to the indicators developed under paragraph (1) shall be--
``(i) statistically representative at the State level;
``(ii) consistent across States;
``(iii) collected on an annual basis for at least the 5
years following the first year of collection;
``(iv) expressed in terms of rates or percentages;
``(v) statistically representative at the national level;
``(vi) measured with reliability;
``(vii) current;
``(viii) over-sampled, with respect to low-income children
and families; and
``(ix) made publicly available.
``(C) Consultation.--In developing the indicators required
under paragraph (1) and the means to collect the data
required with respect to the indicators, the Secretary shall
consult and collaborate with the Federal Interagency Forum on
Child and Family Statistics.
``(3) Advisory panel.--
``(A) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish an
advisory panel to make recommendations regarding the
appropriate measures and statistical tools necessary for
making the assessment required under paragraph (1) based on
the indicators developed under that paragraph and the data
collected with respect to the indicators.
``(B) Membership.--
``(i) In general.--The advisory panel established under
subparagraph (A) shall consist of the following:
``(I) One member appointed by the Secretary of Health and
Human Services.
``(II) One member appointed by the Chairman of the
Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives.
``(III) One member appointed by the Ranking Member of the
Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives.
``(IV) One member appointed by the Chairman of the
Committee on Finance of the Senate.
``(V) One member appointed by the Ranking Member of the
Committee on Finance of the Senate.
``(VI) One member appointed by the Chairman of the National
Governors Association, or the Chairman's designee.
[[Page S1631]]
``(VII) One member appointed by the President of the
National Conference of State Legislatures or the President's
designee.
``(VIII) One member appointed by the Director of the
National Academy of Sciences, or the Director's designee.
``(ii) Deadline.--The members of the advisory panel shall
be appointed not later than 2 months after the date of
enactment of the State Child Well-Being Research Act of 2005.
``(C) Meetings.--The advisory panel established under
subparagraph (A) shall meet--
``(i) at least 3 times during the first year after the date
of enactment of the State Child Well-Being Research Act of
2005; and
``(ii) annually thereafter for the 3 succeeding years.
``(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated for each of fiscal years 2006
through 2010, $15,000,000 for the purpose of carrying out
this subsection.''.
______
By Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mr. Shelby):
S. 417. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
for a refundable wage differential credit for activated military
reservists; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation,
along with Senator Shelby, to provide a financial safety net for the
families of our young men and women who proudly serve in the Nation's
military reserve and National Guard.
Our country is demanding that our military reservists and members of
the National Guard play a more crucial and sustained role in
supplementing the activities of our traditional Armed Forces than at
any other time in our recent history. In response to the Iraq war and
homeland security needs, the country has called up hundreds of
thousands of our reservists and Guard members for extended tours of
duty of up to 18 months.
Today, almost 184,000 National Guardsmen and reservists are on active
duty. Military leaders expect the total number of reservists and
Guardsmen on active duty for the war on terrorism to remain above
100,000 for the indefinite future.
Since September 11, 2001, more than 2,000 of North Dakota's Guardsmen
and reservists have been called to duty and placed in harms way around
the globe. One of the issues I hear most often about from those service
members and their families is how hard it is for them to make ends meet
on their military incomes.
When Guard members or reservists are mobilized, it has an enormous
impact not only on their lives, but also on the lives of their loved
ones. In many cases when an individual is mobilized, his or her family
may experience a serious loss of income. This is because active duty
military compensation often falls below what reservists earn in
civilian income. In addition, some reservists experienced continuing
financial losses after return to civilian life due to neglected
businesses or professional practices.
These income losses are often exacerbated by the additional family
expenses that are associated with military activation, such as the need
for extra day care.
The Pentagon doesn't track the number of reservist families who have
to live on diminished incomes during deployment. But it is clearly a
significant problem. The Pentagon's Reserve Forces Policy Board says
that one-third of all mobilized Reserve component members earn less
than their private sector and civilian salaries while on active duty.
Other estimates are even higher. For example, 45 percent of reserve
officers and 55 percent of enlisted members who were activated for the
1990 Gulf War reported income loss. And a 1998 survey of junior
enlisted members of the California National Guard's 40th Infantry
Division showed that the great majority risked cutting their household
income somewhere between 16 percent and more than 65 percent if they
were called to active duty.
The most recent information on mobilization income loss comes from
the year 2000. Some 41 percent of Guardsmen and reservists who were
mobilized that year reported income losses ranging from $350 to more
than $3,000 per month. Self-employed reservists reported an average
income loss of $1,800 per month. Physicians and registered nurses in
private practice reported an average income loss of as much as $7,000
per month.
Those were big losses. But when that survey was conducted in 2000,
reservists were mobilized for an average of only 3.6 months. Today
mobilizations of up 14 to 18 months are common. So the cumulative
impact of lost wages is much bigger.
The loss of income that reservists and Guardsmen incur when they are
ordered to leave their good-paying private sector or civilian jobs to
serve their country often creates an unmanageable financial burden that
disrupts the lives of their families who are already trying to cope
with the emotional stress and hardship caused by the departure of a
beloved spouse, father or mother who has been ordered to active duty.
In the mid-1990s the Pentagon tried to deal with this problem by
offering members of the National Guard and Reserve the opportunity to
buy insurance to guard against their risk of being called to active
duty and losing income. The program sold coverage for income losses of
up to $5,000 per month. Unfortunately, the program was poorly planned
and executed, and Congress had to appropriate substantial money to bail
out the program before it was terminated. Since then the private sector
has not shown any interest in reviving the mobilization income
insurance program. Thus, we need to find another way to deal with the
issue. The solution I propose is one suggested by the Pentagon's
Reserve Forces Policy Board, that is, an income loss tax credit.
The legislation that Senator Shelby and I are introducing provides a
fully refundable, 100-percent income tax credit of up to $20,000
annually to a military reservists on active duty based upon the
difference in wages paid in his or her private sector or civilian job
and the military wages paid upon mobilization. For this purpose, a
qualified military reservist is a member of the National Guard or Ready
Reserve who is mobilized and serving for more than 90 days.
In conclusion, we owe a great deal to those Americans who put on
their uniforms and serve in the military in the most difficult of
circumstances. We can never fully repay that debt. However, we can do
much more to remove the immediate financial burden that many reserve
and National Guard families experience when a family member is ordered
to active duty. This legislation will provide those families with some
much-needed financial assistance. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to
support my efforts to get this tax relief measure enacted into law as
soon as possible.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with
Senator Dorgan to provide a financial safety net for the families of
our servicemembers who proudly serve in our Nation's military Reserve
and National Guard.
Today, our National Guard and Reserve units are being called upon
more than ever and are being asked to serve their country in a very
different way than in the past. The Global War on Terror and the high
operational tempo of our military require that our Reserve components
play a more active role in the total force.
In the past, our Reservists were exactly what their name implied--a
backup force called upon one weekend a month and two weeks a year.
However, as the Cold War melted away, so did much of our military.
Active Duty numbers were reduced as our major threat, the Soviet Union,
fell apart. Since this reduction in our Active Duty armed forces, the
burden has fallen to the Reservists to ``pick up the slack.''
Unlike any other time in our Nation's history, we now depend heavily
on our Reserve component and have called on many of them to participate
in major deployments, including Operation Enduring Freedom and
Operation Iraqi Freedom. These deployments frequently necessitate
extended tours of duty, many of them exceeding twelve months, for these
citizen-soldiers.
These long tours and frequent activations have a profound and
disruptive effect on the lives of these men and women and on the lives
of their families and loved ones. Many of our reservists suffer a
significant loss of income when they are mobilized--forcing them to
leave often higher paying civilian jobs to serve their country. Such
losses can be compounded by additional family expenses associated with
military activation, including the cost of long distance phone calls
and the need for
[[Page S1632]]
additional child care. These circumstances create a serious financial
burden that is extremely difficult for reservists' families to manage.
We can and should do more to alleviate this financial burden.
Previously, the Pentagon tried to address this problem by offering
members of the National Guard and Reserve the opportunity to buy
insurance to protect against income loss upon mobilization in the mid-
1990s. The program sold coverage for income losses of up to $5,000 per
month. Unfortunately, the program was poorly planned and executed, and
Congress had to appropriate substantial money to bail out the program
before it was terminated. Since then, the private sector has shown
little interest in reviving the mobilization income insurance program
even though the Reserve Forces Policy Board has sighted income
protection as one of its top recommendations.
It is critical that we find another way to deal with the issue.
Therefore, Senator Dorgan and I have proposed the Military Reserve
Mobilization Income Security Act. This legislation would provide a
completely refundable income tax credit of up to $20,000 annually to a
military reservist called to active duty. The amount of the tax credit
would be based upon the difference between wages paid by the
reservist's civilian job and the military wages paid upon mobilization.
The tax credit would be available to members of the National Guard or
Ready Reserve who are serving for more than 90 days and would vary
according to their length of service.
Now is the time to recognize the service and sacrifice of the men and
women who are in the Reserves. At a time when the Nation is once again
calling them to active duty to execute the war in Iraq, fight the War
on Terrorism, and to defend our homeland it is imperative that Congress
recognize the vital role these soldiers play within our military and
acknowledge that the success of our military depends on these troops.
I believe that what Senator Dorgan and I are doing with this bill is
the least we can do for these men and women and their families. It is
not too much to ask of our Nation and more importantly, it is the right
thing to do.
______
By Mr. ENZI (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Hagel, and Mr.
Schumer):
S. 418. A bill to protect members of the Armed Forces from
unscrupulous practices regarding sales of insurance, financial, and
investment products; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from New York
to introduce the Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act
of 2005. This bill is needed to protect our military personnel and
their families from unscrupulous financial products. Over the past
year, it has become increasingly clear to many that the lack of
oversight in this area has allowed certain individuals to push high
cost financial products on unknowing military personnel. This practice
must be stopped. Our soldiers and their families deserve much better,
especially during a time when so many of them are serving at home and
overseas to protect our freedom.
The bill that we introduce today will halt completely the sale of a
mutual fund-like product that charges a 50 percent sales commission
against the first year of contributions by a military family.
Currently, there are hundreds of mutual fund products available on the
market that charge less than six percent. The excessive sales charges
of these contractually based financial products make them susceptible
to abusive and misleading sales practices.
In addition, certain life insurance products are being offered to our
service members disguised and marketed as investment products. These
products provide very low death benefits while charging very high
premiums, especially in the first few years. Many of these products are
unsuitable for the insurance and investment needs of military families.
One of the major problems with the sale of insurance products on
military bases is the confusion of whether state insurance regulators
or military base commanders are responsible for the oversight of sales
agents. Typically, military base commanders will bar certain sales
agents from a military base only to have the sales agents show up at
other military facilities. Since there is no record of the bar, State
insurance regulators have been unable to have adequate oversight of the
individuals. The bill that we introduce today will solve that problem.
It will state clearly that State insurance regulators have jurisdiction
of the sale of insurance products on military bases.
The bill will also urge State insurance regulators to work with the
Department of Defense to develop life insurance product standards and
disclosures. The Department of Defense will keep a list of individuals
who are barred or banned from military bases due to abuse or
unscrupulous sales tactics and to share that list with Federal and
State insurance, securities and other relevant regulators.
Finally, the bill that we are introducing today will protect our
military families by preventing investment companies from issuing
periodic payment plan certificates, the mutual fund-like investment
product with extremely high first year costs. This type of financial
instrument has been criticized by securities regulators since the late
1960s.
It should be noted that there are many upstanding financial and
insurance companies that sell very worthwhile investment and insurance
products to military families. They should be applauded for the fine
job that they do in helping our military members and their families.
This bill is targeted at the few who abuse the system and prey upon our
military.
Congress is fully aware of the dangers faced by our military
personnel in keeping our country safe from harm. Likewise, we must do
all that we can to arm our soldiers when they face the dangers of
planning for their financial futures.
I urge my colleagues to take up this bill immediately so that we can
help our men and women in the military and their families.
______
By Mr. KYL:
S. 419. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify
the treatment of qualified restaurant property as 15-year property for
purposes of the depreciation deduction; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to make
the 15-year depreciation recovery period for improvements to
restaurants permanent, and to extend this treatment to cover new
restaurant construction as well. Last year, in the American Jobs
Creation Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-357), Congress set the
depreciation recovery period for renovations and improvements made to
existing restaurant buildings at 15 years, but this treatment only
applies to property placed in service before the end of 2005.
The legislation I am introducing today will permanently set the
depreciation recovery period for new restaurant construction and for
improvements to existing restaurants at 15 years. It simply makes no
sense that the current law providing a 15-year life for improvements to
restaurant properties expires at the end of 2005. Restaurants are
businesses, and they need the certainty to plan investments several
years in advance. Further, Congress should expand the treatment to
apply to new construction, as well as to improvements.
Restaurants are high-volume businesses. Every day, more than half of
all Americans eat out. Restaurants get more customer traffic and
maintain longer hours than the average commercial business--many
staying open 7 days a week. This tremendous amount of activity causes
rapid deterioration in a restaurant building's systems, from its
entrances and lobbies to its flooring, restrooms, and interior walls.
Restaurants improve and renovate constantly to accommodate the wear
and tear of heavy customer traffic and to keep pace with changing
consumer preferences. Clearly, a 39-year depreciation recovery period--
which is what the recovery period will revert to after 2005--does not
match the economic life for new restaurant buildings or for
improvements to existing structures.
Moreover, permanently setting the depreciation recovery period at 15
years will encourage significant economic activity. According to the
National Restaurant Association, a 15-year depreciation recovery period
for
[[Page S1633]]
new restaurant construction and improvements to existing properties
would generate an additional $3.7 billion in cash flow for the
restaurant industry over the next 10 years. If restaurants use just 25
percent of this influx of cash to expand and undertake additional
renovations, the Restaurant Association study predicts that the 10-year
economic impact would be $853 million.
I hope all of my colleagues will join me in this effort to bring
certainty and a rational depreciation recovery period to the restaurant
industry so that restaurant owners can continue to expand their
businesses and provide good jobs to American workers.
______
By Mr. KYL (for himself, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Allard, Mr.
Allen, Mr. Burns, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Talent, and Mr. Thune):
S. 420. A bill to make the repeal of the estate tax permanent; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Death Tax
Repeal Permanency Act of 2005 along with Senator Bill Nelson. This
bipartisan legislation will make the death tax a thing of the past.
As we all know, Congress, working with President Bush, enacted
bipartisan legislation in 2001 to phase out and eventually repeal the
death tax in 2010. Unfortunately, because we did not have the 60 votes
we needed to avoid a filibuster by opponents of the cuts, we could not
make the repeal permanent. Rather, under Senate rules, the cuts could
only be extended for the term of the budget: 10 years. As a
consequence, the death tax springs back to life in 2011, at its old
rate of up to 60 percent and at its old exemption level of only $1
million. Senator Nelson and I understand that this tax structure is
simply unworkable for families and family businesses. We agree that the
best solution is to simply get rid of the death tax once and for all.
That's why we are introducing legislation today to make death tax
repeal permanent.
Senator Nelson and I are joined in this effort by Senators Allard,
Allen, Burns, Inhofe, Talent, and Thune, and we have the full support
of President Bush, who once again included permanent repeal of the
death tax in his Fiscal Year 2006 budget proposal.
The death tax is an unfair, inefficient, economically unsound and,
frankly, an immoral tax that should be removed from the tax code. A
recent survey found that 58 percent of Americans believe the death tax
is ``completely unfair.'' In contrast, only 10 percent of those
surveyed said the same about sales taxes. Moreover, this view is shared
by Americans across income levels and political parties: 61 percent of
Americans making less than $30,000 a year believe the death tax is
``completely unfair''; 89 percent of respondents who supported
President Bush in the last election and 71 percent of respondents who
supported his opponent in the last election label the death tax
somewhat or very ``unfair.''
And the death tax is unfair, first of all, to the decedent and to his
or her heirs. We are talking about people who work hard throughout
their lives, perhaps start businesses, or perhaps buy homes in fast-
growing metropolitan areas where real estate values are skyrocketing.
Or it could be such a person owns a farm or just works hard in a
company owned by others, but that person saves and invests and
eventually accumulates a small but respectable nest egg. As you can
see, the tax reaches far more than the ``ultra-rich,'' its intended
targets when it was first imposed. The American dream is to be able to
leave these assets to one's children so that they might enjoy a better
life than their parents. It is simply unfair and immoral for the
government to take more than half of these assets at death.
Americans understand that the death tax is unfair because it falls on
families when they have the least ability to make significant economic
decisions: at the time they lose a loved one. Further, it is unfair
because expensive tax planning can significantly ease the effect of the
death tax. If you have the money to hire the right lawyer, buy the
large insurance policies that are needed, and do the proper planning,
your family can be spared much of the financial pain caused by the
death tax. If, on the other hand, you die without warning or if you
have an unexpectedly large estate due to increased property values and
prudent investments, you are caught paying a larger tax. Taxes required
as a result of intentional, planned economic decisions are one thing;
taxes on an untimely death are quite another.
Not only is the death tax unfair; it hurts economic growth. The death
tax creates a disincentive to build a family farm, ranch, or other
business with the goal of passing it on to one's children. In some
cases, it makes more sense for a family business to be sold when the
owner retires, since the taxes, primarily capital gains taxes, are
going to be much lower if the assets are sold while the owner is still
alive. Further, planning for the death tax makes it harder to expand a
family business because needed resources are spent on attorneys and
life insurance instead of growing the business. As much is spent each
year on such ``avoidance planning'' as is collected in death taxes by
the government.
The death tax also hurts economic growth by discouraging savings and
investment. Whether it falls on a family business built through hard
work or on a family with a home and a lifetime of investments in 401(k)
and IRAs thanks to prudent living, it claims nearly half of an estate
over the unified credit amount ($1.5 million in 2005) for the federal
government. Such confiscatory tax rates give people little incentive to
save and invest. What's more, the American people understand that the
death tax represents multiple levels of taxation. Fully 80 percent of
those in a recent survey said that the tax represents an ``extreme''
form of ``triple taxation.''
The death tax has a broader economic reach than to just those
immediately hit with the tax. Suppose a small business employs 25,
maybe 30 people, all of whom rely on the business for their livelihood,
health insurance, and retirement savings. The entrepreneur's heirs may
not have enough cash to pay the applicable death tax, so they may be
forced to liquidate the business. Depending on who buys the assets and
what is done with them, the employees may now have to find other jobs.
Moreover, all of the companies that sold items to or bought items from
this business might need to find other suppliers or customers, leaving
a hole in the economy. According to the IRS ``Statistics of Income,''
estate and gift taxes only brought in about $22.8 billion in fiscal
year 2003 barely more than one percent of all gross tax collections by
the Treasury Department. For such a small amount of revenue, the death
tax inflicts a disproportionately large amount of damage on the
economy.
One of the most interesting statements about the death tax was made
by Edward J. McCaffrey, a law professor from the University of Southern
California and self-described liberal, in testimony before Congress
several years back. He said, ``Polls and practices show that we like
sin taxes, such as on alcohol and cigarettes. . . . The estate tax is
an anti-sin, or a virtue, tax. It is a tax on work and savings without
consumption, on thrift, on long term savings.''
I urge Congress to act this year to end this tax on virtue, work,
savings, job creation and the American dream, and to end it
permanently.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague
from Arizona, Senator Kyl, to introduce a bill that will eliminate the
death tax once and for all. I want to thank my friend for his tireless
leadership in fighting to completely and permanently repeal this unfair
and unwise tax. I am proud to join him in this bipartisan effort.
First, though, I think a little historical context is important.
Remembering back to 2001, this body passed a tax cut bill that set us
on the path toward full repeal of the death tax. Under this plan,
between 2001 and 2009, the tax gradually is phased out, reducing the
marginal rates and increasing the amount that would be exempt from
taxes.
Then, in 2010, the death tax will be eliminated. But it springs back
to life in 2011 at the level it was in 2001.
Today, the legislation we are introducing tends to Congress'
unfinished business. Our bill eliminates the so-called ``sunset'' date
and, simply put: keeps the death tax dead.
[[Page S1634]]
This is an important point. It is a matter of intellectual honesty
and provides much needed stability in estate planning. No one ever
truly expected the death tax would revert to pre-2001 levels. This was
a quirk of the budget process, and something I always believed would be
remedied.
Without action to create permanence in the Tax Code, this on-again,
off-again, then on again approach makes estate planning complicated and
uncertain. As it stands now--financially speaking--2010 will be a good
year to die, but dying in 2011 will be very expensive for your heirs.
This was never Congress' intent.
Furthermore, I believe the cost of planning is a tremendous burden on
our economy. Rather than reinvesting resources in their businesses,
Americans are paying lawyers, accountants and insurers to help insulate
their families from the cost of the death tax. Typical business owners
are more concerned about avoiding the tax than investing in their
businesses and making money, which creates jobs and stimulates the
economy.
I echo the feelings of an editor at the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette,
who in 2001 called this tax ``an un-American drag on the American
Dream--and economy.''
Since my election in 2000 it has been a priority of mine to do away
with this tax, helping business owners and family farmers to improve
their children's standard of living, and to reinvest in the nation's
economy. This is the wrong tax levied at the wrong time; we should not
be taxing individuals at death, forcing family members to make a choice
between selling assets or keeping the family business.
In particular, farmers in Florida are affected more than their fair
share by this tax. With the high price of land, farms can easily
outgrow the exemptions in current law. When a parent dies, children are
forced to sell the land in order to cover the death tax. A family
legacy is lost, and so are jobs.
I am proud to introduce this bill today, and I look forward to
working with Senator Kyl as we try to lend some stability and
sensibility to how taxes are levied at death.
______
By Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mr. Kohl):
S. 421. A bill to reauthorize programs relating to sport fishing and
recreational boating safety, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Lott in
introducing legislation which is of great importance to millions of
people throughout the country. The sport fishing and boating
communities play a vital role in our Nation's economy, and I am pleased
to be working with Senator Lott on legislation that will directly
impact boaters and anglers everywhere.
In Wisconsin, anglers and boaters are integral to the State's
economy. Our access to the Great Lakes is only a portion of what makes
my State an excellent boating and fishing destination. From the
Mississippi River to Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin encompasses thousands of
acres of lakes and rivers; my State is home to more than 1.4 million
anglers, and a destination for thousands of boating and fishing related
tourists each year. In 2001, approximately $1 billion was spent in the
State on fishing related activities, according to a study conducted by
the Fish and Wildlife Service. Recreational boating is an equal partner
to the sport fishing industry, with more than $526 million being spent
in 2003 on powerboats and accessories. As a recreation for residents
and draw for tourists, the contribution of water sports to Wisconsin is
immeasurable.
Today, Senator Lott and I are introducing legislation aimed at giving
back to the fishing and boating communities. This legislation, however,
would not exist if it were not for the leadership of Senator Breaux,
who worked tirelessly on boating and fishing issues during his tenure
in Congress. In 1984, as a member of the House of Representatives, he
worked with then Senator Malcolm Wallop, to create the Aquatic
Resources Trust Fund. The trust fund, commonly known as the Wallop-
Breaux Trust Fund, serves as a collection point for most of the excise
taxes attributable to motorboat and small engine fuels, as well as the
taxes on fishing equipment. The Wallop-Breaux fund is one of the most
successful examples of a ``user pays, user benefits'' program; the
excise taxes that are collected into the fund are then used on programs
that directly benefit boaters and anglers. The funding is then
distributed to States for activities ranging from boating safety
education to maintaining our nation's wetlands.
I am dedicated to continuing the legacy of Wallop-Breaux. That is why
Senator Lott and I are introducing legislation that will reauthorize
the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund and expand the size of the Fund. The
legislation we are introducing today mirrors the Sport Fishing and
Recreational Boating Safety bill in the 108th Congress, which was later
incorporated in the Senate-passed version of the highway
reauthorization bill. Unfortunately, the legislation was not enacted
before the end of the last session.
In addition to reauthorizing this important program, Senator Lott and
I are introducing legislation that would recover approximately $110
million per year of excise taxes currently being paid by anglers and
boaters. Under current law, only 13.5 cents is sent to the Aquatic
Resources Trust Fund, which is only a portion of the 18.3 cents that is
collected on motorboat and small engine fuels. Restoring the remaining
excise taxes will significantly boost funding for the important
programs under the Sport Fish Restoration Act. In Wisconsin, this could
amount to an additional $3 million annually for fishing and boating
activities.
I am very proud to be working with Senator Lott on this issue.
Passing this legislation will be a top priority for me in the 109th
Congress. It is an issue that I know is important to the people of
Wisconsin: to boaters on the Great Lakes; to the Department of Natural
Resources; to anglers on rivers and lakes throughout the state. I can
assure every Senator that it is equally important to people in his or
her State, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure
this legislation's adoption.
______
By Mr. BOND (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Talent, Mr. Johnson,
and Mr. Isakson):
S. 424. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for
arthritis research and public health, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join my colleagues,
Senators Bond, Talent, Johnson, and Isakson, in introducing the
``Arthritis Prevention, Control, and Cure Act of 2005'', and I commend
them for their commitment to this important issue. The bill is the
product of extensive cooperation and input from the arthritis
community, including health providers, patients, and their families.
Through this legislation we hope to lessen the burden of arthritis and
other rheumatic diseases on citizens across the Nation.
Seventy million adults--one of every three in the nation--suffer from
arthritis or related conditions, and all ages are affected. Nearly two-
thirds of its victims are under the age of 65, and 300,000 are
children. Arthritis accounts for 4 million days of hospital care each
year, and results in 44 million outpatient visits. It costs $51 million
in annual medical care, and $86 million more in lost productivity. For
8 million Americans, it is an overwhelming hardship involving serious
disability.
In recent years, research into the prevention and treatment of
arthritis has led to measures to improve the quality of life for large
numbers of persons suffering from the disease. We know that early
diagnosis, treatment, and appropriate management are key to success. A
National Arthritis Action Plan has been developed that could provide
timely information and more effective medical care nationwide, but less
than one percent of persons with arthritis are benefiting from the
knowledge. With a real commitment, we can bring the highest quality of
care to everyone with arthritis.
Our legislation will implement strategies to carry out the National
Arthritis Action Plan. That means supporting prevention and treatment
programs and developing education and outreach activities. It means
coordinating and increasing research for prevention and treatment, and
applying the results to every age group affected by the disease.
[[Page S1635]]
We include planning grants to support innovative research on juvenile
arthritis in order to develop better care and treatment for children,
and collect data on its likely causes. We support training for health
providers specializing in pediatric rheumatology, so that all children
will have greater access to these uniquely qualified physicians.
The legislation will improve the quality of life for large numbers of
adults and children. It will save lives, reduce disability, and avoid
millions of dollars in medical costs. Citizens everywhere will have
greater access to the latest research and medical care to prevent and
treat this debilitating disease. I urge our colleagues to support this
much needed legislation.
______
By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Ms. Cantwell, and Mr. Kennedy):
S. 426. A bill to enhance national security by improving the
reliability of the United States electricity transmission grid, to
ensure efficient, reliable and affordable energy to American consumers,
and for other purposes, to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing comprehensive
legislation to ensure the reliable delivery of electric power in the
United States.
Last Congress, in August of 2003, nearly 50 million people in the
Northeast and Midwest were affected by a massive power outage. This
event emphasized the vulnerability of the U.S. electricity grid to
human error, mechanical failure, and weather-related outages. We must
act to protect the grid from devastating interruptions in the future.
That is why I am introducing this bill today to ensure greater
reliability in our electricity delivery system.
My bill, the Electric Reliability Security Act of 2005, will help
achieve reliability and security of the electricity grid in an
efficient, cost-effective, and environmentally sound manner. It does so
by creating mandatory, nationwide electric reliability standards.
The bill also mandates regional coordination in the siting of
transmission facilities, and provides $10 billion dollars in loan
guarantees to finance ``smart grid'' technologies that improve the way
the grid transmits power.
While a $10 billion dollar investment may seem to be a large
investment, it is significantly less than the transmission cost
estimates that have circulated following the Northeast blackout.
Industry experts estimated that it would cost consumers as much as $100
billion dollars to upgrade transmission systems and site new lines to
meet future reliability needs.
However, even this hefty price tag does not factor in the costs of
additional generation, does not consider the rising cost of natural gas
due to increasing electricity consumption, and does not include the
environmental and other social costs of continued expansion of our
presently centralized power system. Power lines are expensive and are
rarely welcomed by the nearby public. The loan guarantees in the bill
will help balance the need for new transmission lines by providing
federal resources to help improve existing ones.
In addition to addressing system operation and transmission needs,
the bill also promotes sound system management. It establishes a
Federal system benefits fund as a match for state programs.
Historically, regulated electric utility companies have provided a
number of energy-related public services beyond simply supplying
electricity that benefit the system as a whole. Such services have
included bill payment assistance and energy conservation measures for
low-income households, energy efficiency programs for residential and
business customers, and pilot programs to promote renewable energy
resources. More than 20 states, including my home state of Vermont,
have public benefits programs. This bill will provide needed federal
matching money to States for these programs. Our states can use these
funds. They will be able to move more quickly to deploy these low-cost
strategies with federal help.
The Alliance to Save Energy estimates that a federal program to match
existing state public benefits programs would save 1.24 trillion
kilowatt-hours of electricity over 20 years, and cut consumer energy
bills by about $100 billion dollars. Mr. President, my bill, which has
the potential to save consumers $100 billion dollars is far preferable
to raising consumer electricity bills by the $100 billion dollars to
raise money for grid expansion. My Vermont constituents would prefer to
keep the lights on, and their money in their own pockets. The bill also
establishes energy efficiency performance standards for utilities. The
United States has experienced tremendous growth in electricity
consumption over the past decade. Current estimates are that
electricity consumption is increasing at roughly 2 percent per year.
Between 1993 and 1999, U.S. summer peak electricity use alone
increased by 95,000 megawatts. This is the equivalent of adding a new,
six-state New England to the nation's electricity demand every fourteen
months. Energy experts estimate that as much as 50 percent of expected
new demand over the next 20 years can be met through consumer
efficiency and load management programs. Over the past two decades,
utility demand-side efficiency programs have avoided the need for more
than 100 300-megawatt power plants. However, with the advent of
electricity deregulation, utility spending on these efficiency programs
has dropped by almost half. The federal government should seek to
correct this trend, and this bill takes a strong first step in that
direction by phasing in a requirement that utilities reduce their peak
demand for power and their customers' power use between 2006 and 2015.
Finally, the bill enacts standards that enable increased on-site, or
distributed, generation to reduce pressure on the grid and lessen the
impact of a blackout should one occur. We have an obligation, Mr.
President, to ensure that the electricity grid is secure. We currently
have a giant system consisting of almost 200,000 miles of
interconnecting lines that constantly shift huge amounts of electricity
throughout the country. Such a giant and complex system, traversing
miles of city and countryside, is inevitably subject to unforseen
problems. Simply making it bigger will never take away all uncertainty,
nor can it eliminate the vulnerability of the grid to sabotage or
terrorist attack. We should do all we can to make certain such
vulnerabilities are reduced.
In summary, I am introducing this legislation because I feel that we
should be cautious in our assumptions that the answer to our nation's
reliability woes lies primarily in building a bigger, more expansive
grid. Simply building more transmission lines is not the answer.
Investments in energy efficiency and on-site generation can
significantly improve the reliability of the nation's electricity grid
and in most cases will be cheaper, faster to implement and more
environmentally friendly than large-scale grid expansion. We also must
fill the regulatory gaps in the system, which my bill does. Congress
should establish mandatory reliability standards and close other
regulatory gaps left by state deregulation of the electricity sector.
In addition, no national reliability program will be effective or
complete without strong incentives for demand-side management programs
for efficiency and for on-site generation.
We cannot solve today's energy problems with yesterday's solutions.
My bill is an innovative approach to ensuring electric reliability by
maximizing energy efficiency, regulatory efficiency, and efficient
investment. Given the high costs of power outages to our country, we
cannot afford to do otherwise.
I invite my colleagues to join me in my efforts to advance energy
security and reliability in the United States. 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. 426
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 ``Electric
Reliability Security Act of 2005''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--RELIABILITY
Sec. 101. Electric reliability standards.
[[Page S1636]]
Sec. 102. Model electric utility workers code.
Sec. 103. Electricity outage investigation.
Sec. 104. Study on reliability of United States energy grid.
TITLE II--EFFICIENCY
Sec. 201. System benefits fund.
Sec. 202. Electricity efficiency performance standard.
Sec. 203. Appliance efficiency.
Sec. 204. Loan guarantees.
TITLE III--ONSITE GENERATION
Sec. 301. Net metering.
Sec. 302. Interconnection.
Sec. 303. Onsite generation for emergency facilities.
TITLE I--RELIABILITY
SEC. 101. ELECTRIC RELIABILITY STANDARDS.
(a) In General.--Part II of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C
824 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 215. ELECTRIC RELIABILITY.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1)(A) The term `bulk-power system' means--
``(i) facilities and control systems necessary for
operating an interconnected electric energy transmission
network (or any portion thereof); and
``(ii) electric energy from generation facilities needed to
maintain transmission system reliability.
``(B) The term `bulk-power system' does not include
facilities used in the local distribution of electric energy.
``(2) The terms `Electric Reliability Organization' and
`ERO' mean the organization certified by the Commission under
subsection (c) the purpose of which is to establish and
enforce reliability standards for the bulk-power system,
subject to Commission review.
``(3) The term `interconnection' means a geographic area in
which the operation of bulk-power system components is
synchronized such that the failure of 1 or more of such
components may adversely affect the ability of the operators
of other components within the system to maintain reliable
operation of the facilities within their control.
``(4) The term `regional entity' means an entity having
enforcement authority pursuant to subsection (e)(4).
``(5)(A) The term `reliability standard' means a
requirement, approved by the Commission under this section,
to provide for reliable operation of the bulk-power system.
``(B) The term `reliability standard' includes requirements
for the operation of existing bulk-power system facilities
and the design of planned additions or modifications to those
facilities to the extent necessary to provide for reliable
operation of the bulk-power system.
``(C) The term `reliability standard' does not include any
requirement to enlarge a facility described in subparagraph
(B) or to construct new transmission capacity or generation
capacity.
``(6) The term `reliable operation' means operating the
elements of the bulk-power system within equipment and
electric system thermal, voltage, and stability limits so
that instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading
failures of such system will not occur as a result of a
sudden disturbance or unanticipated failure of system
elements.
``(7) The term `transmission organization' means a regional
transmission organization, independent system operator,
independent transmission provider, or other transmission
organization finally approved by the Commission for the
operation of transmission facilities.
``(b) Jurisdiction and Applicability.--(1)(A) The
Commission shall have jurisdiction, within the United States,
over the ERO certified by the Commission under subsection
(c), any regional entities, and all users, owners and
operators of the bulk-power system, including the entities
described in section 201(f), for purposes of approving
reliability standards established under this section and
enforcing compliance with this section.
``(B) All users, owners, and operators of the bulk-power
system shall comply with reliability standards that take
effect under this section.
``(2) Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment
of this section, the Commission shall issue a final rule to
implement this section.
``(c) Certification.--(1) Following the issuance of a
Commission rule under subsection (b)(2), any person may
submit an application to the Commission for certification as
the Electric Reliability Organization.
``(2) The Commission may certify an ERO described in
paragraph (1) if the Commission determines that the ERO--
``(A) has the ability to develop and enforce, subject to
subsection (e)(2), reliability standards that provide for an
adequate level of reliability of the bulk-power system; and
``(B) has established rules that--
``(i) ensure the independence of the ERO from the users and
owners and operators of the bulk-power system, while ensuring
fair stakeholder representation in the selection of directors
of the ERO and balanced decisionmaking in any ERO committee
or subordinate organizational structure;
``(ii) allocate equitably reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among end users for all activities under this
section;
``(iii) provide fair and impartial procedures for
enforcement of reliability standards through the imposition
of penalties in accordance with subsection (e) (including
limitations on activities, functions, or operations, or other
appropriate sanctions);
``(iv) provide for reasonable notice and opportunity for
public comment, due process, openness, and balance of
interests in developing reliability standards and otherwise
exercising the duties of the ERO; and
``(v) provide for taking, after certification, appropriate
steps to gain recognition in Canada and Mexico.
``(d) Reliability Standards.--(1) The Electric Reliability
Organization shall file each reliability standard or
modification to a reliability standard that the Electric
Reliability Organization proposes to be made effective under
this section with the Commission.
``(2)(A) The Commission may approve, by rule or order, a
proposed reliability standard or modification to a
reliability standard if the Commission determines that the
standard is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest.
``(B) The Commission--
``(i) shall give due weight to the technical expertise of
the Electric Reliability Organization with respect to the
content of a proposed standard or modification to a
reliability standard and to the technical expertise of a
regional entity organized on an interconnection-wide basis
with respect to a reliability standard to be applicable
within that interconnection; but
``(ii) shall not defer with respect to the effect of a
standard on competition.
``(C) A proposed standard or modification shall take effect
upon approval by the Commission.
``(3) The Electric Reliability Organization shall
rebuttably presume that a proposal from a regional entity
organized on an interconnection-wide basis for a reliability
standard or modification to a reliability standard to be
applicable on an interconnection-wide basis is just,
reasonable, and not unduly discriminatory or preferential,
and in the public interest.
``(4) The Commission shall remand to the Electric
Reliability Organization for further consideration a proposed
reliability standard or a modification to a reliability
standard that the Commission disapproves in whole or in part.
``(5) The Commission, upon a motion of the Commission or
upon complaint, may order the Electric Reliability
Organization to submit to the Commission a proposed
reliability standard or a modification to a reliability
standard that addresses a specific matter if the Commission
considers such a new or modified reliability standard
appropriate to carry out this section.
``(6)(A) The final rule adopted under subsection (b)(2)
shall include fair processes for the identification and
timely resolution of any conflict between a reliability
standard and any function, rule, order, tariff, rate
schedule, or agreement accepted, approved, or ordered by the
Commission applicable to a transmission organization.
``(B) The transmission organization shall continue to
comply with such function, rule, order, tariff, rate
schedule, or agreement as is accepted, approved, or ordered
by the Commission until--
``(i) the Commission finds a conflict exists between a
reliability standard and any such provision;
``(ii) the Commission orders a change to the provision
pursuant to section 206; and
``(iii) the ordered change becomes effective under this
part.
``(C) If the Commission determines that a reliability
standard needs to be changed as a result of such a conflict,
the Commission shall order the ERO to develop and file with
the Commission a modified reliability standard under
paragraph (4) or (5).
``(e) Enforcement.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the ERO
may impose a penalty on a user or owner or operator of the
bulk-power system for a violation of a reliability standard
approved by the Commission under subsection (d) if the ERO,
after notice and an opportunity for a hearing--
``(A) finds that the user or owner or operator has violated
a reliability standard approved by the Commission under
subsection (d); and
``(B) files notice and the record of the proceeding with
the Commission.
``(2)(A) A penalty imposed under paragraph (1) may take
effect not earlier than the 31st day after the date on which
the ERO files with the Commission notice of the penalty and
the record of proceedings.
``(B) The penalty shall be subject to review by the
Commission upon--
``(i) a motion by the Commission; or
``(ii) application by the user, owner, or operator that is
the subject of the penalty filed not later than 30 days after
the date on which the notice is filed with the Commission.
``(C) Application to the Commission for review, or the
initiation of review by the Commission upon a motion of the
Commission, shall not operate as a stay of the penalty unless
the Commission orders otherwise upon a motion of the
Commission or upon application by the user, owner, or
operator that is the subject of the penalty.
``(D) In any proceeding to review a penalty imposed under
paragraph (1), the Commission, after notice and opportunity
for hearing (which hearing may consist solely of the record
before the ERO and opportunity for the presentation of
supporting reasons to affirm, modify, or set aside the
penalty), shall by order affirm, set aside, reinstate, or
modify the penalty, and, if appropriate, remand to the ERO
for further proceedings.
[[Page S1637]]
``(E) The Commission shall implement expedited procedures
for hearings described in subparagraph (D).
``(3) Upon a motion of the Commission or upon complaint,
the Commission may order compliance with a reliability
standard and may impose a penalty against a user or owner or
operator of the bulk-power system if the Commission finds,
after notice and opportunity for a hearing, that the user or
owner or operator of the bulk-power system has engaged or is
about to engage in any act or practice that constitutes or
will constitute a violation of a reliability standard.
``(4)(A) The Commission shall issue regulations authorizing
the ERO to enter into an agreement to delegate authority to a
regional entity for the purpose of proposing reliability
standards to the ERO and enforcing reliability standards
under paragraph (1) if--
``(i) the regional entity is governed by an independent
board, a balanced stakeholder board, or a combination of an
independent and balanced stakeholder board;
``(ii) the regional entity otherwise meets the requirements
of paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (c); and
``(iii) the agreement promotes effective and efficient
administration of bulk-power system reliability.
``(B) The Commission may modify a delegation under this
paragraph.
``(C) The ERO and the Commission shall rebuttably presume
that a proposal for delegation to a regional entity organized
on an interconnection-wide basis promotes effective and
efficient administration of bulk-power system reliability and
should be approved.
``(D) The regulations issued under this paragraph may
provide that the Commission may assign the authority of the
ERO to enforce reliability standards under paragraph (1)
directly to a regional entity in accordance with this
paragraph.
``(5) The Commission may take such action as the Commission
determines to be appropriate against the ERO or a regional
entity to ensure compliance with a reliability standard or
any Commission order affecting the ERO or a regional entity.
``(6) Any penalty imposed under this section shall bear a
reasonable relation to the seriousness of the violation and
shall take into consideration the efforts of the user, owner,
or operator to remedy the violation in a timely manner.
``(f) Changes in Electric Reliability Organization Rules.--
(1) The Electric Reliability Organization shall file with the
Commission for approval any proposed rule or proposed rule
change, accompanied by an explanation of the basis and
purpose of the rule and proposed rule change.
``(2) The Commission, upon a motion of the Commission or
upon complaint, may propose a change to the rules of the ERO.
``(3) A proposed rule or proposed rule change shall take
effect upon a finding by the Commission, after notice and
opportunity for comment, that the change is just, reasonable,
not unduly discriminatory or preferential, is in the public
interest, and meets the requirements of subsection (c).
``(g) Reliability Reports.--The ERO shall conduct periodic
assessments of the reliability and adequacy of the bulk-power
system in North America.
``(h) Coordination With Canada and Mexico.--The President
is urged to negotiate international agreements with the
governments of Canada and Mexico to provide for effective
compliance with reliability standards and the effectiveness
of the ERO in the United States and Canada or Mexico.
``(i) Savings Provisions.--(1) The ERO may develop and
enforce compliance with reliability standards for only the
bulk-power system.
``(2) Nothing in this section authorizes the ERO or the
Commission to order the construction of additional generation
or transmission capacity or to set and enforce compliance
with standards for adequacy or safety of electric facilities
or services.
``(3) Nothing in this section preempts any authority of any
State to take action to ensure the safety, adequacy, and
reliability of electric service within that State, as long as
such action is not inconsistent with any reliability
standard.
``(4) Not later than 90 days after the date of application
of the Electric Reliability Organization or other affected
party, and after notice and opportunity for comment, the
Commission shall issue a final order determining whether a
State action is inconsistent with a reliability standard,
taking into consideration any recommendation of the ERO.
``(5) The Commission, after consultation with the ERO and
the State taking action, may stay the effectiveness of any
State action, pending the issuance by the Commission of a
final order.
``(j) Regional Advisory Bodies.--(1) The Commission shall
establish a regional advisory body on the petition of at
least \2/3\ of the States within a region that have more than
\1/2\ of the electric load of the States served within the
region.
``(2) A regional advisory body--
``(A) shall be composed of 1 member from each participating
State in the region, appointed by the Governor of the State;
and
``(B) may include representatives of agencies, States, and
provinces outside the United States.
``(3) A regional advisory body may provide advice to the
Electric Reliability Organization, a regional entity, or the
Commission regarding--
``(A) the governance of an existing or proposed regional
entity within the same region;
``(B) whether a standard proposed to apply within the
region is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest;
``(C) whether fees proposed to be assessed within the
region are just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest; and
``(D) any other responsibilities requested by the
Commission.
``(4) The Commission may give deference to the advice of a
regional advisory body if that body is organized on an
interconnection-wide basis.
``(k) Alaska and Hawaii.--This section does not apply to
Alaska or Hawaii.''.
(b) Status of ERO.--The Electric Reliability Organization
certified by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under
section 215(c) of the Federal Power Act (as added by
subsection (a)) and any regional entity delegated enforcement
authority pursuant to section 215(e)(4) of that Act (as so
added) are not departments, agencies, or instrumentalities of
the United States Government.
SEC. 102. MODEL ELECTRIC UTILITY WORKERS CODE.
Subtitle B of title I of the Public Utility Regulatory
Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2621 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 118. MODEL CODE FOR ELECTRIC UTILITY WORKERS.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall develop by rule and
circulate among the States for their consideration a model
code containing standards for electric facility workers to
ensure electric facility safety and reliability.
``(b) Consultation.--In developing the standards, the
Secretary shall consult with all interested parties,
including representatives of electric facility workers.
``(c) Not Affecting Occupational Safety and Health.--In
issuing a model code under this section, the Secretary shall
not, for purposes of section 4 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653), be deemed to be
exercising statutory authority to prescribe or enforce
standards or regulations affecting occupational safety and
health.''.
SEC. 103. ELECTRICITY OUTAGE INVESTIGATION.
Part III of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating sections 320 and 321 (16 U.S.C. 825r,
791a) as sections 321 and 322, respectively; and
(2) by inserting after section 319 (16 U.S.C. 825q) the
following:
``SEC. 320. ELECTRICITY OUTAGE INVESTIGATION BOARD.
``(a) Establishment.--There is established an Electricity
Outage Investigation Board that shall be an independent
establishment within the executive branch.
``(b) Membership.--(1) The Board shall consist of 7 members
and shall include--
``(A) the Secretary of Energy (or a designee);
``(B) the Chairperson of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (or a designee);
``(C) a representative of the National Academy of Sciences
appointed by the President;
``(D) a representative nominated by the majority leader of
the Senate and appointed by the President;
``(E) a representative nominated by the minority leader of
the Senate and appointed by the President;
``(F) a representative nominated by the majority leader of
the House of Representatives and appointed by the President;
and
``(G) a representative nominated by the minority leader of
the House of Representatives and appointed by the President.
``(2) Each member of the Board shall demonstrate relevant
expertise in the field of electricity generation,
transmission, and distribution, and such other expertise as
will best assist in carrying out the duties of the Board.
``(c) Terms.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), each
member of the Board shall serve for a term of 3 years.
``(2) The Secretary of Energy and the Chairperson of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall be permanent
members of the Board.
``(d) Duties.--The Board shall--
``(1) upon request by Congress or the President,
investigate a major bulk-power system failure in the United
States to determine the causes of the failure;
``(2) report expeditiously to Congress and the President
the results of the investigation; and
``(3) recommend to Congress and the President actions to
minimize the possibility of future bulk-power system failure.
``(e) Compensation.--(1) Each member of the Board shall be
paid at the rate payable for level III of the Executive
Schedule for each day (including travel time) the member is
engaged in the work of the Board.
``(2) Each member of the Board may receive travel expenses,
including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in the same manner
as is permitted under sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5,
United States Code.''.
SEC. 104. STUDY ON RELIABILITY OF UNITED STATES ELECTRICITY
GRID.
(a) Study on Reliability.--Not later than 45 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall
enter into a contract with the National Academy of Sciences
under which the Academy shall conduct a study on the
reliability of the
[[Page S1638]]
United States electricity grid to examine the effectiveness
of the current United States electricity transmission and
distribution system at providing efficient, secure, and
affordable power to United States consumers.
(b) Contents.--The study shall include an analysis of--
(1) the vulnerability of the transmission and distribution
system to disruption by natural, mechanical or human causes
including sabotage;
(2) the most efficient and cost-effective solutions for
dealing with vulnerabilities or other problems of the
electricity transmission and distribution system of the
United States, including a comparison of investments in--
(A) efficiency;
(B) distributed generation;
(C) technical advances in software and other devices to
improve the efficiency and reliability of the grid;
(D) new power line construction; and
(E) any other relevant matters.
(c) Report.--The contract shall provide that, not later
than 180 days after the date of execution of the contract,
the National Academy of Sciences shall submit to the
President and Congress a report that details the findings and
recommendations of the study.
TITLE II--EFFICIENCY
SEC. 201. SYSTEM BENEFITS FUND.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the System Benefits
Trust Fund Board established under subsection (b).
(3) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission.
(4) Farm system.--The term ``farm system'' means an
electric generating facility that generates electric energy
from the anaerobic digestion of agricultural waste produced
by farming that is located on the farm where substantially
all of the waste used is produced.
(5) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the System Benefits
Trust Fund established under subsection (c).
(6) Renewable Energy.--The term ``renewable energy'' means
electricity generated from wind, ocean energy, organic waste
(excluding incinerated municipal solid waste), biomass
(including anaerobic digestion from farm systems and landfill
gas recovery) or a geothermal, solar thermal, or photovoltaic
source.
(7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Energy.
(b) Board.--
(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a System
Benefits Trust Fund Board to carry out the functions and
responsibilities described in this section.
(2) Membership.--The Board shall be composed of--
(A) 1 representative of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission appointed by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission;
(B) 2 representatives of the Secretary of Energy appointed
by the Secretary;
(C) 2 persons nominated by the National Association of
Regulatory Utility Commissioners and appointed by the
Secretary;
(D) 1 person nominated by the National Association of State
Utility Consumer Advocates and appointed by the Secretary;
(E) 1 person nominated by the National Association of State
Energy Officials and appointed by the Secretary;
(F) 1 person nominated by the National Energy Assistance
Directors' Association and appointed by the Secretary; and
(G) 1 representative of the Environmental Protection Agency
appointed by the Administrator.
(3) Chairperson.--The Secretary shall select a member of
the Board to serve as Chairperson of the Board.
(c) Establishment of Fund.--
(1) In general.--The Board shall establish an account or
accounts at 1 or more financial institutions, which account
or accounts shall--
(A) be known as the ``System Benefits Trust Fund''; and
(B) consist of amounts deposited in the Fund under
subsection (e).
(2) Status of fund.--The wires charges collected under
subsection (e) and deposited in the Fund--
(A) shall not constitute funds of the United States;
(B) shall be held in trust by the Board solely for the
purposes stated in subsection (d); and
(C) shall not be available to meet any obligations of the
United States.
(d) Use of Fund.--
(1) Funding of state programs.--Amounts in the Fund shall
be used by the Board to provide matching funds to States and
Indian tribes for the support of State or tribal public
benefits programs relating to--
(A) energy conservation and efficiency;
(B) renewable energy sources;
(C) assisting low-income households in meeting their home
energy needs; or
(D) research and development in areas described in
subparagraphs (A) through (C).
(2) Distribution.--
(A) In general.--Except for amounts needed to pay costs of
the Board in carrying out its duties under this section, the
Board shall distribute all amounts in the Fund to States or
Indian tribes to fund public benefits programs under
paragraph (1).
(B) Fund share.--
(i) In general.--Subject to clause (iii), the Fund share of
a public benefits program funded under paragraph (1) shall be
50 percent.
(ii) Proportionate reduction.--To the extent that the
amount of matching funds requested by States and Indian
tribes exceeds the maximum projected revenues of the Fund,
the matching funds distributed to each State and Indian tribe
shall be reduced by an amount equal to the proportion that
the annual consumption of electricity of the State or Indian
tribe bears to the annual consumption of electricity of all
States and Indian tribes.
(iii) Additional state or indian tribe funding.--A State or
Indian tribe may apply funds to public benefits programs in
addition to the amount of funds applied for the purpose of
matching the Fund share.
(3) Program criteria.--The Board shall recommend
eligibility criteria for public benefits programs funded
under this section for approval by the Secretary.
(4) Application.--Not later than August 1 of each year
beginning in 2006, a State or Indian tribe seeking matching
funds for the following fiscal year shall file with the
Board, in such form as the Board may require, an
application--
(A) certifying that the funds will be used for an eligible
public benefits program;
(B) stating the amount of State or Indian tribe funds
earmarked for the program; and
(C) summarizing how amounts from the Fund from the previous
calendar year (if any) were spent by the State and what the
State accomplished as a result of the expenditures.
(e) Wires Charge.--
(1) Determination of needed funding.--Not later than
September 1 of each year, the Board shall determine and
inform the Commission of the aggregate amount of wires
charges that will be necessary to be paid into the Fund to
pay matching funds to States and Indian tribes and pay the
operating costs of the Board in the following fiscal year.
(2) Imposition of wires charge.--
(A) In general.--Not later than December 15 of each year,
the Commission shall impose a nonbypassable, competitively
neutral wires charge, to be paid directly into the Fund by
the operator of the wire, on electricity carried through the
wire (measured as the electricity exits at the busbar at a
generation facility, or, for electricity generated outside
the United States, at the point of delivery to the wire
operator's system) in interstate commerce.
(B) Amount.--The wires charge shall be set at a rate equal
to the lesser of--
(i) 1.0 mills per kilowatt hour; or
(ii) a rate that is estimated to result in the collection
of an amount of wires charges that is, to the maximum extent
practicable, equal to the amount of needed funding determined
under paragraph (1).
(3) Deposit in the fund.--The wires charge shall be paid by
the operator of the wire directly into the Fund at the end of
each month during the calendar year for distribution by the
Board under subsection (c).
(4) Penalties.--The Commission may assess against a wire
operator that fails to pay a wires charge as required by this
subsection a civil penalty in an amount equal to not more
than the amount of the unpaid wires charge.
(f) Auditing.--
(1) In general.--The Fund shall be audited annually by a
firm of independent certified public accountants in
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards.
(2) Access to records.--Representatives of the Secretary
and the Commission shall have access to all books, accounts,
reports, files, and other records pertaining to the Fund as
necessary to facilitate and verify the audit.
(3) Reports.--
(A) In general.--A report on each audit shall be submitted
to the Secretary, the Commission, and the Secretary of the
Treasury, who shall submit the report to the President and
Congress not later than 180 days after the end of the fiscal
year.
(B) Requirements.--An audit report shall--
(i) set forth the scope of the audit; and
(ii) include--
(I) a statement of assets and liabilities, capital, and
surplus or deficit;
(II) a surplus of deficit analysis;
(III) a statement of income and expenses;
(IV) any other information that may be considered necessary
to keep the President and Congress informed of the operations
and financial condition of the Fund; and
(V) any recommendations with respect to the Fund that the
Secretary or the Commission may have.
SEC. 202. ELECTRICITY EFFICIENCY PERFORMANCE STANDARD.
Title VI of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of
1978 (16 U.S.C. 2621 note) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``SEC. 609. FEDERAL ELECTRICITY EFFICIENCY PERFORMANCE
STANDARD.
``(a) In General.--Each electric retail supplier shall
implement energy efficiency and load reduction programs and
measures to achieve verified improvements in energy
efficiency and peak load reduction in retail customer
facilities and the distribution systems that serve those
facilities.
``(b) Power Savings.--The programs and measures under
subsection (a) shall produce savings in total peak power
demand and total electricity use by retail customers by an
amount that is equal to or greater than
[[Page S1639]]
the following percentages relative to the peak demand and
electricity used in that year by the retail electric
supplier's customers:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduction Reduction
in demand in use
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In calendar year 2006......................... 1% .75%
In calendar year 2007......................... 2% 1.5%
In calendar year 2009......................... 4% 3.0%
In calendar year 2011......................... 6% 4.5%
In calendar year 2013......................... 8% 6.0%
In calendar year 2015......................... 10% 7.5%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``(c) Beginning Date.--For purposes of this section,
savings shall be counted only for measures installed after
January 1, 2006.
``(d) Rulemaking.--(1) Not later than June 30, 2005, the
Secretary shall establish, by rule--
``(A) procedures and standards for counting and
independently verifying energy and demand savings for
purposes of enforcing the energy efficiency performance
standards imposed by this section; and
``(B) procedures and a schedule for reporting findings to
the Department of Energy and for making the reports available
to the public.
``(2) In developing the procedures, standards, and schedule
under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall consult with--
``(A) the association representing public utility
regulators in the United States; and
``(B) the association representing the State energy
officials in the United States.
``(e) Reporting.--(1) Not later than June 30, 2008, and
every 2 years thereafter, each retail electric supplier shall
file with the State public utilities commission in each State
in which the supplier provides service to retail customers a
report demonstrating that the retail electric supplier has
taken action to comply with the energy efficiency performance
standards of this section.
``(2) A report filed under paragraph (1) shall include
independent verification of the estimated savings pursuant to
standards established by the Secretary.
``(3)(A) A State public utilities commission may--
``(i) accept a report as filed under paragraph (1); or
``(ii) review and investigate the accuracy of the report.
``(B) Each State public utilities commission shall--
``(i) make findings on any deficiencies relating to the
requirements under section 2; and
``(ii) issue a remedial order for the correction of any
deficiencies that are found.
``(f) Utilities Outside State Jurisdiction.--(1) An
electric retail supplier that is not subject to the
jurisdiction of a State public utilities commission shall
submit reports in accordance with subsection (e) to the
governing body of the electric retail supplier.
``(2) A report submitted under paragraph (1) shall include
independent verification of the estimated savings pursuant to
standards established by the Secretary.
``(g) Program Participation.--(1) An electric retail
supplier may demonstrate satisfaction of the standard under
this section, in whole or part, by savings achieved through
participation in statewide, regional, or national programs
that can be demonstrated to significantly improve the
efficiency of electric distribution and use.
``(2) Verified efficiency savings resulting from programs
described in paragraph (1) may be assigned to each
participating retail supplier based upon the degree of
participation of the supplier in the programs.
``(3) An electric retail supplier may purchase rights to
extra savings achieved by other electric retail suppliers if
the selling supplier or another electric retail supplier does
not also take credit for those savings.
``(h) Remedies for Failure To Comply.--(1) In the event
that any retail electric supplier fails to achieve its energy
savings or load reduction target for a specific year, any
aggrieved party may bring a civil action or file an
administrative claim to seek prompt remedial action before a
State public utilities commission (or, in the case of an
electric retail supplier not subject to State public utility
commission jurisdiction, before an appropriate governing
body).
``(2)(A) The State public utilities commission or other
appropriate governing body shall have a maximum of 1 year to
craft a remedy for a civil action or claim filed under
paragraph (1).
``(B) If a State public utilities commission or other
governing body certifies that the commission or body has
inadequate resources or authority to promptly resolve
enforcement actions under this section, or fails to take
action within the time period specified in subparagraph (A),
the commission or body or an aggrieved party may seek
enforcement in Federal district court.
``(3)(A) If a commission or court determines that energy
savings or load reduction targets for a specific year have
not been achieved by a retail electric supplier under this
section, the commission or court shall--
``(i) determine the amount of the deficit; and
``(ii) fashion an equitable remedy to restore the lost
savings as soon as practicable.
``(B) A remedy under subparagraph (A)(ii) may include--
``(i) a refund to retail electric customers of an amount
equal to the retail cost of the electricity consumed due to
the failure to reach the target; and
``(ii) the appointment of a special master to administer a
bidding system to procure the energy and demand savings equal
to 125 percent of the deficit.''.
SEC. 203. APPLIANCE EFFICIENCY.
Section 325(d)(3) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(42 U.S.C. 6295(d)(3)) is amended by striking subparagraph
(B) and inserting the following:
``(B) Not later than January 1, 2009, the Secretary shall
publish a final rule to determine whether the standards in
effect for central air conditioners and central air
conditioning heat pumps should be amended. The rule shall
address both system annual energy use and peak electric
demand and may include more than 1 efficiency descriptor. The
rule shall apply to products manufactured on or after January
1, 2012.''.
SEC. 204. LOAN GUARANTEES.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Eligible activity.--The term ``eligible activity''
means--
(A) advanced technologies for high-efficiency electricity
transmission control and operation, including high-efficiency
power electronics technologies (including software-controlled
computer chips and sensors to diagnose trouble spots and re-
route power into appropriate areas), high-efficiency
electricity storage systems, and high-efficiency transmission
wire or transmission cable system;
(B) distributed generation systems fueled solely by--
(i) solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, or ocean energy;
(ii) landfill gas;
(iii) natural gas systems utilizing best available control
technology;
(iv) fuel cells; or
(v) any combination of the above;
(C) combined heat and power systems; and
(D) energy efficiency systems producing demonstrable
electricity savings.
(2) Qualifying entity.--The term ``qualifying entity''
means an individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture,
trust or other entity identified by the Secretary under
subsection (d)(1) as eligible for a guaranteed loan under
this section.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Energy.
(b) Authority.--The Secretary may guarantee not more than
50 percent of the principal of any loan made to a qualifying
entity for eligible activities under this section.
(c) Conditions.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall not guarantee a loan
under this section unless--
(A) the guarantee is a qualifying entity;
(B) the guarantee has filed an application with the
Secretary;
(C) the project, activity, program, or system for which the
loan is made is an eligible activity; and
(D) the project, activity, program, or system for which the
loan is made will significantly enhance the reliability,
security, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of electricity
generation, transmission or distribution.
(2) Priority.--The Secretary shall give priority to
guaranteed loans under this section for eligible activities
that accomplish the objectives of this section in the most
environmentally beneficial manner.
(3) Eligible financial institutions.--A loan guaranteed
under this section shall be made by a financial institution
subject to the examination of the Secretary.
(d) Rules.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall publish a
final rule establishing guidelines for loan requirements
under this section, including establishment of--
(1) criteria for determining which entities shall be
considered qualifying entities eligible for loan guarantees
under this section;
(2) criteria for determining which projects, activities,
programs, or systems shall be considered eligible activities
eligible for loan guarantees in accordance with the purposes
of this section;
(3) loan requirements including term, maximum size,
collateral requirements; and
(4) any other relevant features.
(e) Limitation on Size.--The Secretary may make commitments
to guarantee loans under this section only to the extent that
the total principal, any part of which is guaranteed, will
not exceed $10,000,000,000.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary such sums as are
necessary to cover the cost of loan guarantees (as defined by
section 502(5) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2.
U.S.C. 661a(5))) under this section.
TITLE III--ONSITE GENERATION
SEC. 301. NET METERING.
(a) Adoption of Standard.--Section 111(d) of the Public
Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2621(d))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(11) Net metering.--
``(A) In general.--Each electric utility shall make
available upon request net metering service to any electric
consumer that the electric utility serves.
``(B) References.--For purposes of implementing this
paragraph, any reference contained in this section to the
date of enactment of this Act shall be deemed to be a
reference to the date of enactment of this paragraph.''.
(b) Special Rules for Net Metering.--Section 115 of the
Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C.
2625) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Net Metering.--(1) In this subsection:
``(A) The term `eligible onsite generating facility'
means--
[[Page S1640]]
``(i) a facility on the site of a residential electric
consumer with a maximum generating capacity of 25 kilowatts
or less; or
``(ii) a facility on the site of a commercial electric
consumer with a maximum generating capacity of 1,000
kilowatts or less,
that is fueled solely by a renewable energy resource.
``(B) The term `net metering service' means service to an
electric consumer under which electric energy generated by
that electric consumer from an eligible onsite generating
facility and delivered to the local distribution facilities
may be used to offset electric energy provided by the
electric utility to the electric consumer during the
applicable billing period.
``(C) The term `renewable energy resource' means--
``(i) solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, or wave energy;
``(ii) landfill gas;
``(iii) fuel cells; and
``(iv) a combined heat and power system.
``(2) In undertaking the consideration and making the
determination concerning net metering established by section
111(d)(11), the following shall apply:
``(A) An electric utility--
``(i) shall charge the owner or operator of an onsite
generating facility rates and charges that are identical to
those that would be charged other electric consumers of the
electric utility in the same rate class; and
``(ii) shall not charge the owner or operator of an onsite
generating facility any additional standby, capacity,
interconnection, or other rate or charge.
``(B) An electric utility that sells electric energy to the
owner or operator of an onsite generating facility shall
measure the quantity of electric energy produced by the
onsite facility and the quantity of electricity consumed by
the owner or operator of an onsite generating facility during
a billing period in accordance with normal metering
practices.
``(C) If the quantity of electric energy sold by the
electric utility to an on-site generating facility exceeds
the quantity of electric energy supplied by the onsite
generating facility to the electric utility during the
billing period, the electric utility may bill the owner or
operator for the net quantity of electric energy sold, in
accordance with normal metering practices.
``(D) If the quantity of electric energy supplied by the
onsite generating facility to the electric utility exceeds
the quantity of electric energy sold by the electric utility
to the onsite generating facility during the billing period--
``(i) the electric utility may bill the owner or operator
of the onsite generating facility for the appropriate charges
for the billing period in accordance with subparagraph (B);
and
``(ii) the owner or operator of the onsite generating
facility shall be credited for the excess kilowatt-hours
generated during the billing period, with the kilowatt-hour
credit appearing on the bill for the following billing
period.
``(E) An eligible onsite generating facility and net
metering system used by an electric consumer shall meet all
applicable safety, performance, reliability, and
interconnection standards established by the National
Electrical Code, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, and Underwriters Laboratories.
``(F) The Commission, after consultation with State
regulatory authorities and nonregulated electric utilities
and after notice and opportunity for comment, may adopt, by
rule, additional control and testing requirements for onsite
generating facilities and net metering systems that the
Commission determines are necessary to protect public safety
and system reliability.
``(G) An electric utility must provide net metering
services to electric consumers until the cumulative
generating capacity of net metering systems equals 1.0
percent of the utility's peak demand during the most recent
calendar year.
``(H) Nothing in this subsection precludes a State from
imposing additional requirements regarding the amount of net
metering available within a State consistent with the
requirements of this section.''.
SEC. 302. INTERCONNECTION.
(a) Definitions.--Section 3 of the Federal Power Act (16
U.S.C. 796) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph 23 and inserting the following:
``(23) Transmitting utility.--The term `transmitting
utility' means any entity (notwithstanding section 201(f))
that owns, controls, or operates an electric power
transmission facility that is used for the sale of electric
energy.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(26) Appropriate regulatory authority.--The term
`appropriate regulatory authority' means--
``(A) the Commission;
``(B) a State commission;
``(C) a municipality; or
``(D) a cooperative that is self-regulating under State law
and is not a public utility.
``(27) Generating facility.--The term `generating facility'
means a facility that generates electric energy.
``(28) Local distribution utility.--The term `local
distribution facility' means an entity that owns, controls,
or operates an electric power distribution facility that is
used for the sale of electric energy.
``(29) Non-federal regulatory authority.--The term `non-
Federal regulatory authority' means an appropriate regulatory
authority other than the Commission.''.
(b) Interconnection to Distribution Facilities.--Section
210 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824i) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (g); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
``(e) Interconnection to Distribution Facilities.--(1)(A) A
local distribution utility shall interconnect a generating
facility with the distribution facilities of the local
distribution utility if the owner of the generating
facility--
``(i) complies with the final rule promulgated under
paragraph (2); and
``(ii) pays the costs of the interconnection.
``(B) The costs of the interconnection--
``(i) shall be just and reasonable, and not unduly
discriminatory or preferential, as determined by the
appropriate regulatory authority; and
``(ii) shall be comparable to the costs charged by the
local distribution utility for interconnection by any
similarly situated generating facility to the distribution
facilities of the local distribution utility.
``(C) The right of a generating facility to interconnect
under subparagraph (A) does not relieve the generating
facility or the local distribution utility of other Federal,
State, or local requirements.
``(2) Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment
of this subparagraph, the Commission shall promulgate final
rules establishing reasonable and appropriate technical
standards for the interconnection of a generating facility
with the distribution facilities of a local distribution
utility.
``(3)(A) In accordance with subparagraph (B) a local
distribution utility shall offer to sell backup power to a
generating facility that has interconnected with the local
distribution utility to the extent that the local
distribution utility--
``(i) is not subject to an order of a non-Federal
regulatory authority to provide open access to the
distribution facilities of the local distribution utility;
``(ii) has not offered to provide open access to the
distribution facilities of the local distribution utility; or
``(iii) does not allow a generating facility to purchase
backup power from another entity using the distribution
facilities of the local distribution utility.
``(B) A sale of backup power under subparagraph (A) shall
be at such a rate, and under such terms and conditions as are
just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, taking into account the actual incremental
cost, whenever incurred by the local distribution utility, to
supply such backup power service during the period in which
the backup power service is provided, as determined by the
appropriate regulatory authority.
``(C) A local distribution utility shall not be required to
offer backup power for resale to any entity other than the
entity for which the backup power is purchased.
``(D) To the extent backup power is used to serve a new or
expanded load on the distribution system, the generating
facility shall pay any reasonable cost associated with any
transmission, distribution, or generating upgrade required to
provide such service.''.
(c) Interconnection to Transmission Facilities.--Section
210 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824i) (as amended by
subsection (b)) is amended by inserting after subsection (e)
the following:
``(f) Interconnection to Transmission Facilities.--(1)(A)
Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (c), a transmitting
utility shall interconnect a generating facility with the
transmission facilities of the transmitting utility if the
owner of the generating facility--
``(i) complies with the final rules promulgated under
paragraph (2); and
``(ii) pays the costs of interconnection.
``(B) Subject to subparagraph (C), the costs of
interconnection--
``(i) shall be just and reasonable and not unduly
discriminatory or preferential; and
``(ii) shall be comparable to the costs charged by the
transmitting utility for interconnection by any similarly
situated generating facility to the transmitting facilities
of the transmitting utility.
``(C) A non-Federal regulatory authority that is authorized
under Federal law to determine the rates for transmission
service shall be authorized to determine the costs of any
interconnection under this subparagraph.
``(D) The right of a generating facility to interconnect
under subparagraph (A) does not relieve the generating
facility or the transmitting utility of other Federal, State,
or local requirements.
``(2) Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment
of this subparagraph, the Commission shall promulgate rules
establishing reasonable and appropriate technical standards
for the interconnection of a generating facility with the
transmission facilities of a transmitting utility.
``(3)(A) In accordance with subparagraph (B), a
transmitting utility shall offer to sell backup power to a
generating facility that has interconnected with the
transmitting utility unless--
``(i) Federal or State law allows a generating facility to
purchase backup power from an entity other than the
transmitting utility; or
``(ii) a transmitting utility allows a generating facility
to purchase backup power from an entity other than the
transmitting utility
[[Page S1641]]
using the transmission facilities of the transmitting utility
and the transmission facilities of any other transmitting
utility.
``(B) A sale of backup power under subparagraph (A) shall
be at such a rate and under such terms and conditions as are
just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, taking into account the actual incremental
cost, whenever incurred by the local distribution utility, to
supply such backup power service during the period in which
the backup power service is provided, as determined by the
appropriate regulatory authority.
``(C) A transmitting utility shall not be required to offer
backup power for resale to any entity other than the entity
for which the backup power is purchased.
``(D) To the extent backup power is used to serve a new or
expanded load on the transmission system, the generating
facility shall pay any reasonable costs associated with any
transmission, distribution, or generation upgrade required to
provide the service.''.
(d) Conforming Amendments.--Section 210 of the Federal
Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824i) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) by inserting ``transmitting utility, local distribution
utility,'' after ``electric utility,''; and
(B) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``any transmitting
utility,'' after ``small power production facility,'';
(2) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``an evidentiary
hearing'' and inserting ``a hearing'';
(3) in subsection (c)(2)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' at the end and
inserting ``or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) promote competition in electricity markets, and'';
and
(4) in subsection (d), by striking the last sentence.
SEC. 303. ONSITE GENERATION FOR EMERGENCY FACILITIES.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Eligible facility.--The term ``eligible facility''
means a building owned or operated by a State or local
government that is used for--
(A) critical governmental dispatch and communication;
(B) police, fire, or emergency services;
(C) traffic control systems; or
(D) public water or sewer systems.
(2) Renewable uninterruptible power supply system.--The
term ``renewable uninterruptible power supply system'' means
a system designed to maintain electrical power to critical
loads in a public facility in the event of a loss or
disruption in conventional grid electricity, where such
system derives its energy production or storage capacity
solely from--
(A) solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, or ocean energy;
(B) natural gas;
(C) landfill gas;
(D) a fuel cell device; or
(E) a combination of energy described in subparagraphs (A)
through (D).
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Energy.
(b) Demonstration and Technology Transfer Program.--The
Secretary shall establish a demonstration program for the
implementation of innovative technologies for renewable
uninterruptible power supply systems located in eligible
buildings and for the dissemination of information on those
systems to interested parties.
(c) Limit on Federal Funding.--The Secretary shall provide
not more than 40 percent of the costs of projects funded
under this section.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009.
______
By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Reed, Mr. Kerry, Mr.
Dodd, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 427. A bill to amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of
1978 to provide for a Federal renewable portfolio standard; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Renewable
Energy Investment Act of 2005 to accelerate the use of clean, domestic
renewable energy sources as an integral part of our Nation's electrical
generation.
A recent episode of the television show, West Wing, portrayed
renewable energy as science fiction. The truth is closer to Reality TV.
Eighteen States, plus the District of Columbia, have already
instituted minimum renewable standards. This bill would establish a
national renewable portfolio standard requiring that, by the year 2020,
20 percent of U.S. electricity be derived from clean, domestically
produced renewable energy including wind, solar, biomass, geothermal
and wave energy.
As the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee, I think obtaining 20 percent of our country's electricity
from renewable energy represents the modest end of what we could
achieve.
Let me offer five reasons why I believe we need a national commitment
to encourage renewable power.
First, renewable power would help consumers by reducing electricity
prices. According to data provided by the Bush administration's Energy
Department, a 20 percent renewables requirement similar to that set
forth in the bill I am introducing today would lower consumer energy
costs by the year 2020. Why? Because adding additional renewables to
our energy mix will decrease the pressure on natural gas supplies,
bringing overall costs down.
This point is worth repeating. Despite concerns from those in the
fossil fuel and nuclear industries, the Department of Energy has
consistently found that a mandatory renewable portfolio standard would
not raise overall energy costs and would have no significant adverse
impact on America's wallets.
Estimates are that reaching 10 percent renewable energy production by
the year 2020 could reduce the demand for natural gas by as much as 1.4
trillion cubic feet, and could reduce the price of natural gas by 6
percent. With the higher renewable portfolio standard in my bill, the
price reductions are even greater.
I have received letters from the chemical industry expressing deep
concern about the high price of natural gas, and imploring me to take
steps to help alleviate shortages and reduce costs.
Much to my consternation, however, neither the chemical industry, nor
this administration have addressed the obvious link between increasing
renewable energy production and easing demand on natural gas supplies.
Instead, their solutions have been to open sensitive lands to more
drilling, reduce environmental compliance and advance clean coal
technologies.
Whatever merits there may be to some of their suggestions, an obvious
step that should be taken is diversifying our energy sector and easing
the growing demand on natural gas by promoting other clean energies
which can be readily produced on American soil.
The second reason for a national commitment to encourage renewable
power is the public health and environmental benefits.
Electricity generation is the leading source of U.S. carbon
emissions, accounting for over 40 percent of the total. Carbon dioxide
emissions are the primary greenhouse gas, contributing to harmful
climate change. A 20 percent renewables requirement would, according to
the U.S. Department of Energy, reduce carbon emissions from power
plants by up to 18 percent by the year 2020.
A 20 percent renewables requirement would also significantly reduce
emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides. These pollutants contaminate
our water, cause smog and acid rain, and contribute to respiratory
illnesses. As a result, a renewable portfolio standard would help
alleviate asthma, which has become the most common chronic disease for
children.
Coal burning electric power plants are also the largest source of
mercury pollution, releasing an estimated 98,000 pounds of mercury
directly into the air, and generating an additional 80,000 pounds a
year in mercury tainted waste. A renewable portfolio standard would
help the estimated five million women and children regularly exposed to
mercury at levels that EPA considers unsafe.
And according to the Department of Energy, these public health
benefits would be achieved without raising consumer energy costs.
Third, a 20 percent renewable portfolio standard would enhance our
national security by diversifying our energy supply. As we increase our
reliance on natural gas, much of the demand may have to be met by
liquified natural gas shipped to the U.S. from other countries. It is
unthinkable that we should sink to greater reliance on foreign fuel
imports when we have abundant, inexhaustible renewable energy right
here.
Further, much of the U.S. energy system including power plants,
refineries, and pipelines, present significant safety and security
risks. Renewable energy facilities are generally smaller, more
geographically dispersed and do
[[Page S1642]]
not involve disposal or transportation of radioactive or combustible
materials.
A 20 percent renewable portfolio standard such as I offer today will
help bring the costs of on-site generation down even further, making
providing your own electricity a reality for a growing number of homes
and facilities. In these times when we worry about the potential
security of our energy grid, that option becomes increasingly
attractive.
Fourth, a national renewable portfolio standard builds on the
successful experiments by the States. To date, 18 States, plus the
District of Columbia, have adopted mandatory renewable energy
standards. These State programs provide excellent incentives for
renewable energy. In September 2004, New York created the second-
largest new renewable energy market in the country, behind only
California, when the state Public Service Commission adopted a standard
of 24 percent by 2013. Earlier in 2004, Hawaii, Maryland, and Rhode
Island also enacted minimum renewable electricity standards.
Texas has one of the most successful state programs. The Texas
Renewable portfolio standard was signed into law by then Governor
George W. Bush, and administered by Pat Wood, who now chairs the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. These men know the value of
renewable energy. Texas now has enough wind power to run about 300,000
homes a year, with huge benefits to ranchers who can lease acreage for
wind turbines.
However, as good as these State efforts are, they are subject to the
inherent limitation that they can only address electricity sales and
production within their own State boundaries. Yet as we know,
electricity generation and transmission are regional in nature. State
renewable requirements alone cannot provide the market and other
mechanisms necessary to address regional and national electricity
transmission.
But these State programs demonstrate that renewables requirements can
work, and operate to the benefit of consumers.
Finally, I call for a national commitment to encourage renewable
power because a cleaner energy future is in our grasp. The U.S. has the
technical capacity to generate 4.5 times its current electricity needs
from renewable energy resources. European investment continues to
outstrip U.S. markets, but that is changing. Worldwide, approximately
6,500 megawatts of new wind energy generating capacity were installed,
amounting to annual sales of about $7 billion. Almost a third of that
came from the United States, which installed nearly 1,700 megawatts of
new wind energy in 2001, or $1.7 billion worth of new wind energy
generating capacity.
Yet, renewable energy still accounts for only a little over 2 percent
of U.S. electricity generation.
It is not that we expect this renewable portfolio standard to make
conventional energy sources obsolete. Undoubtedly, fossil, nuclear and
other fuels will be with us for some time. But isn't it time that we
charted our future with cleaner energies? The potential is there, but
we have to give it the assistance of market incentives, as we have
traditionally done for our more established fuel sources.
I urge my colleagues to again demonstrate our strong commitment to
renewables and support my legislation. 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. 427
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 ``Renewable Energy Investment
Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD.
Title VI of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of
1978 (16 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``SEC. 606. FEDERAL RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Biomass.--
``(A) In general.--The term `biomass' means--
``(i) organic material from a plant that is planted for the
purpose of being used to produce energy;
``(ii) nonhazardous, cellulosic or agricultural waste
material that is segregated from other waste materials and is
derived from--
``(I) a forest-related resource, including--
``(aa) mill and harvesting residue;
``(bb) precommercial thinnings;
``(cc) slash; and
``(dd) brush;
``(II) agricultural resources, including--
``(aa) orchard tree crops;
``(bb) vineyards;
``(cc) grains;
``(dd) legumes;
``(ee) sugar; and
``(ff) other crop by-products or residues; or
``(III) miscellaneous waste such as--
``(aa) waste pallet;
``(bb) crate; and
``(cc) landscape or right-of-way tree trimmings; and
``(iii) animal waste that is converted to a fuel rather
than directly combusted, the residue of which is converted to
a biological fertilizer, oil, or activated carbon.
``(B) Exclusions.--The term `biomass' shall not include--
``(i) municipal solid waste that is incinerated;
``(ii) recyclable post-consumer waste paper;
``(iii) painted, treated, or pressurized wood;
``(iv) wood contaminated with plastics or metals; or
``(v) tires.
``(2) Distributed generation.--The term `distributed
generation' means reduced electricity consumption from the
electric grid due to use by a customer of renewable energy
generated at a customer site.
``(3) Incremental hydropower.--The term `incremental
hydropower' means additional generation achieved from
increased efficiency after January 1, 2005, at a
hydroelectric dam that was placed in service before January
1, 2005.
``(4) Landfill gas.--The term `landfill gas' means gas
generated from the decomposition of household solid waste,
commercial solid waste, and industrial solid waste disposed
of in a municipal solid waste landfill unit (as those terms
are defined in regulations promulgated under subtitle D of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6941 et seq.)).
``(5) Renewable energy.--The term `renewable energy' means
electricity generated from
``(A) a renewable energy source; or
``(B) hydrogen that is produced from a renewable energy
source.
``(6) Renewable energy source.--The term `renewable energy
source' means--
``(A) wind;
``(B) ocean waves;
``(C) biomass;
``(D) solar;
``(E) landfill gas;
``(F) incremental hydropower; or
``(G) geothermal.
``(7) Retail electric supplier.--The term `retail electric
supplier' means a person or entity that sells retail
electricity to consumers, and which sold not less than
500,000 megawatt-hours of electric energy to consumers for
purposes other than resale during the preceding calendar
year.
``(8) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Energy.
``(b) Renewable Energy Requirements.--
``(1) In general.--For each calendar year beginning in
Calendar year 2006, each retail electric supplier shall
submit to the Secretary, not later than April 30 of each
year, renewable energy credits in an amount equal to the
required annual percentage of the retail electric supplier's
total amount of kilowatt-hours of non-hydropower (excluding
incremental hydropower) electricity sold to retail consumers
during the previous calendar year.
``(2) Carryover.--A renewable energy credit for any year
that is not used to satisfy the minimum requirement for that
year may be carried over for use within the next two years.
``(c) Required Annual Percentage.--Of the total amount of
non-hydropower (excluding incremental hydropower) electricity
sold by each retail electric supplier during a calendar year,
the amount generated by renewable energy sources shall be not
less than the percentage specified below:
Percentage of
Renewable energy
``Calendar years: Each year:
2006-2009.......................................................5....
2010-2014......................................................10....
2015-2019......................................................15....
2020 and subsequent years......................................20....
``(d) Submission of Renewable Energy Credits.--
``(1) In general.--To meet the requirements under
subsection (b), a retail electric supplier shall submit to
the Secretary either--
``(A) renewable energy credits issued to the retail
electric supplier under subsection (f);
``(B) renewable energy credits obtained by purchase or
exchange under subsection (g);
``(C) renewable energy credits purchased from the United
States under subsection (h); or
``(D) any combination of credits under subsections (f), (g)
or (h).
``(2) Prohibition on double counting.--A credit may be
counted toward compliance with subsection (b) only once.
``(e) Renewable Energy Credit Program.--The Secretary shall
establish, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment
of this Act, a program to issue, monitor the sale or exchange
of, and track, renewable energy credits.
``(f) Issuance of Renewable Energy Credits.--
[[Page S1643]]
``(1) In general.--Under the program established in
subsection (e), an entity that generates electric energy
through the use of a renewable energy resource may apply to
the Secretary for the issuance of renewable energy credits.
``(2) Application.--An application for the issuance of
renewable energy credits shall indicate--
``(A) the type of renewable energy resource used to produce
the electric energy;
``(B) the State in which the electric energy was produced;
and
``(C) any other information the Secretary determines
appropriate.
``(3) Credit value.--Except as provided in subparagraph
(4), the Secretary shall issue to an entity applying under
this subsection 1 renewable energy credit for each kilowatt-
hour of renewable energy generated in any State from the date
of enactment of this Act and in each subsequent calendar
year.
``(4) Credit value for distributed generation.--The
Secretary shall issue 3 renewable energy credits for each
kilowatt-hour of distributed generation.
``(5) Vesting.--A renewable energy credit will vest with
the owner of the system or facility that generates the
renewable energy unless such owner explicitly transfers the
credit.
``(6) Credit eligibility.--To be eligible for a renewable
energy credit, the unit of electricity generated through the
use of a renewable energy resource shall be sold for retail
consumption or used by the generator. If both a renewable
energy resource and a non-renewable energy resource are used
to generate the electric energy, the Secretary shall issue
renewable energy credits based on the proportion of the
renewable energy resource used.
``(7) Identifying credits.--The Secretary shall identify
renewable energy credits by the type and date of generation.
``(8) Sale under purpa contract.--When a generator sells
electric energy generated through the use of a renewable
energy resource to a retail electric supplier under a
contract subject to section 210 of the Public Utilities
Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 824a-3), the
retail electric supplier is treated as the generator of the
electric energy for the purposes of this Act for the duration
of the contract.
``(g) Sale or Exchange of Renewable Energy Credits.--A
renewable energy credit may be sold or exchanged by the
entity issued the renewable energy credit or by any other
entity that acquires the renewable energy credit. Credits may
be sold or exchanged in any manner not in conflict with
existing law, including on the spot market or by contractual
arrangements of any duration.
``(h) Purchase From the United States.--The Secretary shall
offer renewable energy credits for sale at the lesser of
three cents per kilowatt-hour or 110 percent of the average
market value of credits for the applicable compliance period.
On January 1 of each year following calendar year 2006, the
Secretary shall adjust for inflation the price charged per
credit for such calendar year.
``(i) State Programs.--Nothing in this section shall
preclude any State from requiring additional renewable energy
generation in the State under any renewable energy program
conducted by the State.
``(j) Consumer Allocation.--The rates charged to classes of
consumers by a retail electric supplier shall reflect a
proportional percentage of the cost of generating or
acquiring the required annual percentage of renewable energy
under subsection (b). A retail electric supplier shall not
represent to any customer or prospective customer that any
product contains more than the percentage of eligible
resources if the additional amount of eligible resources is
being used to satisfy the renewable generation requirement
under subsection (b).
``(k) Enforcement.--A retail electric supplier that does
not submit renewable energy credits as required under
subsection (b) shall be liable for the payment of a civil
penalty. That penalty shall be calculated on the basis of the
number of renewable energy credits not submitted, multiplied
by the lesser of 4.5 cents or 300 percent of the average
market value of credits for the compliance period.
``(l) Information Collection.--The Secretary may collect
the information necessary to verify and audit--
``(1) the annual electric energy generation and renewable
energy generation of any entity applying for renewable energy
credits under this section;
``(2) the validity of renewable energy credits submitted by
a retail electric supplier to the Secretary; and
``(3) the quantity of electricity sales of all retail
electric suppliers.
``(m) Voluntary Participation.--The Secretary may issue a
renewable energy credit pursuant to subsection (f) to any
entity not subject to the requirements of this Act only if
the entity applying for such credit meets the terms and
conditions of this Act to the same extent as entities subject
to this Act.
``(n) State Renewable Energy Grant Program.--
``(1) Distribution to states.--The Secretary shall
distribute amounts received from sales under subsection (h)
and from amounts received under subsection (k) to States to
be used for the purposes of this section.
``(2) Regional equity program.--
``(A) Establishment of program.--Within 1 year from the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish
a program to promote renewable energy production and use
consistent with the purposes of this section.
``(B) Eligibility.--The Secretary shall make funds
available under this section to State energy agencies for
grant programs for--
``(i) renewable energy research and development;
``(ii) loan guarantees to encourage construction of
renewable energy facilities;
``(iii) consumer rebate or other programs to offset costs
of small residential or small commercial renewable energy
systems including solar hot water; or
``(iv) promoting distributed generation.
``(3) Allocation preferences.--In allocating funds under
the program, the Secretary shall give preference to--
``(A) States in regions which have a disproportionately
small share of economically sustainable renewable energy
generation capacity; and
``(B) State grant programs most likely to stimulate or
enhance innovative renewable energy technologies.''.
______
By Mr. TALENT (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Allen, Mr. Coleman,
Ms. Collins, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Dayton, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Graham,
and Mr. Vitter):
S. 428. A bill to provide $30,000,000,000 in new transportation
infrastructure funding in addition to TEA-21 levels through bonding to
empower States and local governments to complete significant long-term
capital improvement projects for highways, public transportation
systems, and rail systems, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. TALENT. 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. 428
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; ETC.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Build
America Bonds Act of 2005''.
(b) References to Internal Revenue Code of 1986.--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 Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Our Nation's highways, public transportation systems,
and rail systems drive our economy, enabling all industries
to achieve growth and productivity that makes America strong
and prosperous.
(2) The establishment, maintenance, and improvement of the
national transportation network is a national priority, for
economic, environmental, energy, security, and other reasons.
(3) The ability to move people and goods is critical to
maintaining State, metropolitan, rural, and local economies.
(4) The construction of infrastructure requires the skills
of numerous occupations, including those in the contracting,
engineering, planning and design, materials supply,
manufacturing, distribution, and safety industries.
(5) Investing in transportation infrastructure creates
long-term capital assets for the Nation that will help the
United States address its enormous infrastructure needs and
improve its economic productivity.
(6) Investment in transportation infrastructure creates
jobs and spurs economic activity to put people back to work
and stimulate the economy.
(7) Every billion dollars in transportation investment has
the potential to create up to 47,500 jobs.
(8) Every dollar invested in the Nation's transportation
infrastructure yields at least $5.70 in economic benefits
because of reduced delays, improved safety, and reduced
vehicle operating costs.
(9) The proposed increases to the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (TEA-21) will not be sufficient to
compensate for the Nation's transportation infrastructure
deficit.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to provide
financing for long-term infrastructure capital investments
that are not currently being met by existing transportation
and infrastructure investment programs, including mega-
projects, projects of national significance, multistate
transportation corridors, intermodal transportation
facilities, and transportation and security improvements to
highways, public transportation systems, and rail systems.
SEC. 3. CREDIT TO HOLDERS OF BUILD AMERICA BONDS.
(a) In General.--Part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1
(relating to credits against tax) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subpart:
``Subpart H--Nonrefundable Credit for Holders of Build America Bonds
``Sec. 54. Credit to holders of Build America bonds.
[[Page S1644]]
``SEC. 54. CREDIT TO HOLDERS OF BUILD AMERICA BONDS.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of a taxpayer who
holds a Build America bond on a credit allowance date of such
bond which occurs during the taxable year, there shall be
allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter
for such taxable year an amount equal to the sum of the
credits determined under subsection (b) with respect to
credit allowance dates during such year on which the taxpayer
holds such bond.
``(b) Amount of Credit.--
``(1) In general.--The amount of the credit determined
under this subsection with respect to any credit allowance
date for a Build America bond is 25 percent of the annual
credit determined with respect to such bond.
``(2) Annual credit.--The annual credit determined with
respect to any Build America bond is the product of--
``(A) the applicable credit rate, multiplied by
``(B) the outstanding face amount of the bond.
``(3) Applicable credit rate.--For purposes of paragraph
(2), the applicable credit rate with respect to an issue is
the rate equal to an average market yield (as of the day
before the date of sale of the issue) on outstanding long-
term corporate debt obligations (determined in such manner as
the Secretary prescribes).
``(4) Credit allowance date.--For purposes of this section,
the term `credit allowance date' means--
``(A) March 15,
``(B) June 15,
``(C) September 15, and
``(D) December 15.
Such term includes the last day on which the bond is
outstanding.
``(5) Special rule for issuance and redemption.--In the
case of a bond which is issued during the 3-month period
ending on a credit allowance date, the amount of the credit
determined under this subsection with respect to such credit
allowance date shall be a ratable portion of the credit
otherwise determined based on the portion of the 3-month
period during which the bond is outstanding. A similar rule
shall apply when the bond is redeemed.
``(c) Limitation Based on Amount of Tax.--
``(1) In general.--The credit allowed under subsection (a)
for any taxable year shall not exceed the excess of--
``(A) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in
section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over
``(B) the sum of the credits allowable under this part
(other than this subpart and subpart C).
``(2) Carryover of unused credit.--If the credit allowable
under subsection (a) exceeds the limitation imposed by
paragraph (1) for such taxable year, such excess shall be
carried to the succeeding taxable year and added to the
credit allowable under subsection (a) for such taxable year.
``(d) Credit Included in Gross Income.--Gross income
includes the amount of the credit allowed to the taxpayer
under this section (determined without regard to subsection
(c)) and the amount so included shall be treated as interest
income.
``(e) Build America Bond.--For purposes of this part, the
term `Build America bond' means any bond issued as part of an
issue if--
``(1) the net spendable proceeds from the sale of such
issue are to be used--
``(A) for expenditures incurred after the date of the
enactment of this section for any qualified project, or
``(B) for deposit in the Build America Trust Account for
repayment of Build America bonds at maturity,
``(2) the bond is issued by the Transportation Finance
Corporation, is in registered form, and meets the Build
America bond limitation requirements under subsection (g),
``(3) the Transportation Finance Corporation certifies that
it meets the State contribution requirement of subsection (k)
with respect to such project, as in effect on the date of
issuance,
``(4) the Transportation Finance Corporation certifies that
the State in which an approved qualified project is located
meets the requirement described in subsection (l),
``(5) except for bonds issued in accordance with subsection
(g)(6), the term of each bond which is part of such issue
does not exceed 30 years,
``(6) the payment of principal with respect to such bond is
the obligation of the Transportation Finance Corporation, and
``(7) with respect to bonds described in paragraph (1)(A),
the issue meets the requirements of subsection (h) (relating
to arbitrage).
``(f) Qualified Project.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `qualified project' means any--
``(A) qualified highway project, and
``(B) qualified public transportation project,
proposed by 1 or more States and approved by the
Transportation Finance Corporation.
``(2) Qualified highway project.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified highway project'
means any--
``(i) project of regional or national significance,
``(ii) multistate corridor program,
``(iii) border planning, operations, technology, and
capacity improvement program, and
``(iv) freight intermodal connector project.
``(B) Projects of regional and national significance.--
``(i) In general.--The term `project of regional or
national significance' means the eligible project costs of
any surface transportation project which is eligible for
Federal assistance under title 23, United States Code,
including any freight rail project and activity eligible
under such title, if such eligible project costs are
reasonably anticipated to equal or exceed the lesser of--
``(I) $100,000,000, or
``(II) 50 percent of the amount of Federal highway
assistance funds apportioned for the most recently completed
fiscal year to the State in which the project is located.
``(ii) Eligible project costs.--The term `eligible project
costs' means the costs of--
``(I) development phase activities, including planning,
feasibility analysis, revenue forecasting, environmental
review, preliminary engineering and design work, and other
preconstruction activities, and
``(II) construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, and
acquisition of real property (including land related to the
project and improvements to land), environmental mitigation,
construction contingencies, acquisition of equipment, and
operational improvements.
``(iii) Criteria for approval.--The Transportation Finance
Corporation may approve a project of regional or national
significance only if the Corporation determines that the
project is based on the results of preliminary engineering,
and is justified based on the project's ability--
``(I) to generate national or regional economic benefits,
including creating jobs, expanding business opportunities,
and impacting the gross domestic product,
``(II) to reduce congestion, including impacts in the
State, region, and Nation,
``(III) to improve transportation safety, including
reducing transportation accidents, injuries, and fatalities,
and
``(IV) to otherwise enhance the national transportation
system.
``(C) Multistate corridor program.--
``(i) In general.--The term `multistate corridor program'
means any program for multistate highway and multimodal
planning studies and construction.
``(ii) Criteria for approval.--The Transportation Finance
Corporation shall consider in approving any multistate
corridor program--
``(I) the existence and significance of signed and binding
multijurisdictional agreements,
``(II) prospects for early completion of the program, or
``(III) whether the projects under such program to be
studied or constructed are located on corridors identified by
section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240; 105 Stat. 2032).
``(D) Border planning, operations, technology, and capacity
improvement program.--
``(i) In general.--The term `border planning, operations,
technology, and capacity improvement program' means any
program which includes 1 or more eligible activities to
support coordination and improvement in bi-national
transportation planning, operations, efficiency, information
exchange, safety, and security at the international borders
of the United States with Canada and Mexico.
``(ii) Eligible activities.--For purposes of this
subparagraph, the term `eligible activities' means--
``(I) highway and multimodal planning or environmental
studies,
``(II) cross-border port of entry and safety inspection
improvements, including operational enhancements and
technology applications,
``(III) technology and information exchange activities, and
``(IV) right-of-way acquisition, design, and construction,
as needed to implement the enhancements or applications
described in subclauses (II) and (III), to decrease air
pollution emissions from vehicles or inspection facilities at
border crossings, or to increase highway capacity at or near
international borders.
``(E) Freight intermodal connector project.--
``(i) In general.--The term `freight intermodal connector
project' means any project for the construction of and
improvements to publicly owned freight intermodal connectors
to the National Highway System, the provision of access to
such connectors, and operational improvements for such
connectors (including capital investment for intelligent
transportation systems), except that a project located within
the boundaries of an intermodal freight facility shall only
include highway infrastructure modifications necessary to
facilitate direct intermodal access between the connector and
the facility.
``(ii) Criteria for approval.--The Transportation Finance
Corporation shall consider in approving any freight
intermodal connector project the criteria set forth in the
report of the Department of Transportation to Congress
entitled `Pulling Together: The NHS and its Connections to
Major Intermodal Terminals'.
``(iii) Freight intermodal connector.--The term `freight
intermodal connector' means the roadway that connects to an
intermodal freight facility that carries or will carry
intermodal traffic.
[[Page S1645]]
``(iv) Intermodal freight facility.--The term `intermodal
freight facility' means a port, airport, truck-rail terminal,
and pipeline-truck terminal.
``(3) Qualified public transportation project.--The term
`qualified public transportation project' means a project for
public transportation facilities or other facilities which
are eligible for assistance under title 49, United States
Code, including intercity passenger rail.
``(g) Limitation on Amount of Bonds Designated; Allocation
of Bond Proceeds.--
``(1) National limitation.--There is a Build America bond
limitation for each calendar year. Such limitation is--
``(A) with respect to bonds described in subsection
(e)(1)(A)--
``(i) $5,500,000,000 for 2005,
``(ii) $8,000,000,000 for 2006,
``(iii) $8,000,000,000 for 2007,
``(iv) $3,000,000,000 for 2008,
``(v) $3,000,000,000 for 2009,
``(vi) $2,500,000,000 for 2010, and
``(vii) except as provided in paragraph (4), zero
thereafter, plus
``(B) with respect to bonds described in subsection
(e)(1)(B), such amount each calendar year as determined
necessary by the Transportation Finance Corporation to
provide funds in the Build America Trust Account for the
repayment of Build America bonds at maturity, except that the
aggregate amount of such bonds for all calendar years shall
not exceed $9,000,000,000,000.
``(2) Allocation of bonds for highway and public
transportation purposes.--Except with respect to qualified
projects described in subsection (j)(3), and subject to
paragraph (3)--
``(A) Qualified highway projects.--From Build America bonds
issued under the annual limitation in paragraph (1)(A), the
Transportation Finance Corporation shall allocate 80 percent
of the net spendable proceeds to the States for qualified
highway projects designated by law from recommendations
submitted to Congress identifying various projects approved
as meeting the criteria required for each such project by the
Transportation Finance Corporation.
``(B) Qualified public transportation projects.--From Build
America bonds issued under the annual limitation in paragraph
(1)(A), the Transportation Finance Corporation shall allocate
20 percent of the net spendable proceeds to the States for
qualified public transportation projects designated by law
from recommendations submitted to Congress identifying
various projects approved as meeting the criteria required
for each such project by the Transportation Finance
Corporation.
``(3) Minimum allocations to states.--In making allocations
for each calendar year under paragraph (2), the
Transportation Finance Corporation shall ensure that the
amount allocated for qualified projects located in each State
for such calendar year is not less than \1/2\ percent of the
total amount allocated for such year.
``(4) Carryover of unused issuance limitation.--If for any
calendar year the limitation amount imposed by paragraph (1)
exceeds the amount of Build America bonds issued during such
year, such excess shall be carried forward to one or more
succeeding calendar years as an addition to the limitation
imposed by paragraph (1) and until used by issuance of Build
America bonds.
``(5) Issuance of small denomination bonds.--From the Build
America bond limitation for each year, the Transportation
Finance Corporation shall issue a limited quantity of Build
America bonds in small denominations suitable for purchase as
gifts by individual investors wishing to show their support
for investing in America's infrastructure.
``(h) Special Rules Relating to Arbitrage.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), an issue shall
be treated as meeting the requirements of this subsection if
as of the date of issuance, the Transportation Finance
Corporation reasonably expects--
``(A) to spend at least 85 percent of the net spendable
proceeds from the sale of the issue for 1 or more qualified
projects within the 5-year period beginning on such date,
``(B) to incur a binding commitment with a third party to
spend at least 10 percent of the net spendable proceeds from
the sale of the issue, or to commence construction, with
respect to such projects within the 12-month period beginning
on such date, and
``(C) to proceed with due diligence to complete such
projects and to spend the net spendable proceeds from the
sale of the issue.
``(2) Spent proceeds.--Net spendable proceeds are
considered spent by the Transportation Finance Corporation
when a sponsor of a qualified project obtains a reimbursement
from the Transportation Finance Corporation for eligible
project costs.
``(3) Rules regarding continuing compliance after 5-year
determination.--If at least 85 percent of the net spendable
proceeds from the sale of the issue is not expended for 1 or
more qualified projects within the 5-year period beginning on
the date of issuance, but the requirements of paragraph (1)
are otherwise met, an issue shall be treated as continuing to
meet the requirements of this subsection if the
Transportation Finance Corporation uses all unspent net
spendable proceeds from the sale of the issue to redeem bonds
of the issue within 90 days after the end of such 5-year
period.
``(4) Reallocation.--In the event the recipient of an
allocation under subsection (g) fails to demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Transportation Finance Corporation that
its actions will allow the Transportation Finance Corporation
to meet the requirements under this subsection, the
Transportation Finance Corporation may redistribute the
allocation meant for such recipient to other recipients.
``(i) Recapture of Portion of Credit Where Cessation of
Compliance.--
``(1) In general.--If any bond which when issued purported
to be a Build America bond ceases to be such a qualified
bond, the Transportation Finance Corporation shall pay to the
United States (at the time required by the Secretary) an
amount equal to the sum of--
``(A) the aggregate of the credits allowable under this
section with respect to such bond (determined without regard
to subsection (c)) for taxable years ending during the
calendar year in which such cessation occurs and the 2
preceding calendar years, and
``(B) interest at the underpayment rate under section 6621
on the amount determined under subparagraph (A) for each
calendar year for the period beginning on the first day of
such calendar year.
``(2) Failure to pay.--If the Transportation Finance
Corporation fails to timely pay the amount required by
paragraph (1) with respect to such bond, the tax imposed by
this chapter on each holder of any such bond which is part of
such issue shall be increased (for the taxable year of the
holder in which such cessation occurs) by the aggregate
decrease in the credits allowed under this section to such
holder for taxable years beginning in such 3 calendar years
which would have resulted solely from denying any credit
under this section with respect to such issue for such
taxable years.
``(3) Special rules.--
``(A) Tax benefit rule.--The tax for the taxable year shall
be increased under paragraph (2) only with respect to credits
allowed by reason of this section which were used to reduce
tax liability. In the case of credits not so used to reduce
tax liability, the carryforwards and carrybacks under section
39 shall be appropriately adjusted.
``(B) No credits against tax.--Any increase in tax under
paragraph (2) shall not be treated as a tax imposed by this
chapter for purposes of determining--
``(i) the amount of any credit allowable under this part,
or
``(ii) the amount of the tax imposed by section 55.
``(j) Build America Trust Account.--
``(1) In general.--The following amounts shall be held in a
Build America Trust Account by the Transportation Finance
Corporation:
``(A) The proceeds from the sale of all bonds issued under
this section.
``(B) The amount of any matching contributions with respect
to such bonds.
``(C) The investment earnings on proceeds from the sale of
such bonds.
``(D) Any earnings on any amounts described in subparagraph
(A), (B), or (C).
``(2) Use of funds.--Amounts in the Build America Trust
Account may be used only to pay costs of qualified projects,
redeem Build America bonds, and fund the operations of the
Transportation Finance Corporation, except that amounts
withdrawn from the Build America Trust Account to pay costs
of qualified projects may not exceed the aggregate proceeds
from the sale of Build America bonds described in subsection
(e)(1)(A).
``(3) Use of remaining funds in build america trust
account.--Upon the redemption of all Build America bonds
issued under this section, any remaining amounts in the Build
America Trust Account shall be available to the
Transportation Finance Corporation to pay the costs of any
qualified project.
``(4) Costs of qualified projects.--For purposes of this
section, the costs of qualified projects which may be funded
by amounts in the Build America Trust Account may only relate
to capital investments in depreciable assets and may not
include any costs relating to operations, maintenance, or
rolling stock.
``(5) Applicability of federal law.--The requirements of
any Federal law, including titles 23, 40, and 49 of the
United States Code, which would otherwise apply to projects
to which the United States is a party or to funds made
available under such law and projects assisted with those
funds shall apply to--
``(A) funds made available under the Build America Trust
Account for similar qualified projects, including
contributions required under subsection (k), and
``(B) similar qualified projects assisted by the
Transportation Finance Corporation through the use of such
funds.
``(6) Investment.--It shall be the duty of the
Transportation Finance Corporation to invest in investment
grade obligations such portion of the Build America Trust
Account as is not, in the judgment of the Board of Directors
of the Transportation Finance Corporation, required to meet
current withdrawals. To the maximum extent practicable,
investments should be made in securities that support
transportation investment at the State and local level.
``(k) State Contribution Requirements.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (e)(3), the
State contribution requirement of this subsection is met with
respect to any qualified project if the Transportation
Finance Corporation has received from 1 or more States, not
later than the
[[Page S1646]]
date of issuance of the bond, written commitments for
matching contributions of not less than 20 percent (or such
smaller percentage as determined under title 23, United
States Code, for such State) of the cost of the qualified
project.
``(2) State matching contributions may not include federal
funds.--For purposes of this subsection, State matching
contributions shall not be derived, directly or indirectly,
from Federal funds, including any transfers from the Highway
Trust Fund under section 9503.
``(l) Utilization of Updated Construction Technology for
Qualified Projects.--For purposes of subsection (e)(4), the
requirement of this subsection is met if the appropriate
State agency relating to the qualified project has updated
its accepted construction technologies to match a list
prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation and in effect
on the date of the approval of the project as a qualified
project.
``(m) Other Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of
this section--
``(1) Administrative costs.--The term `administrative
costs' shall only include costs of issuance of Build America
bonds and operation costs of the Transportation Corporation.
``(2) Bond.--The term `bond' includes any obligation.
``(3) Net spendable proceeds.--The term `net spendable
proceeds' means the proceeds from the sale of any Build
America bond issued under this section reduced by not more
than 5 percent of such proceeds for administrative costs.
``(4) State.--The term `State' shall have the meaning given
such term by section 101 of title 23, United States Code.
``(5) Treatment of changes in use.--For purposes of
subsection (e)(1)(A), the net spendable proceeds from the
sale of an issue shall not be treated as used for a qualified
project to the extent that the Transportation Finance
Corporation takes any action within its control which causes
such proceeds not to be used for a qualified project. The
Secretary shall specify remedial actions which may be taken
(including conditions to taking such remedial actions) to
prevent an action described in the preceding sentence from
causing a bond to fail to be a Build America bond.
``(6) Partnership; s corporation; and other pass-thru
entities.--In the case of a partnership, trust, S
corporation, or other pass-thru entity, rules similar to the
rules of section 41(g) shall apply with respect to the credit
allowable under subsection (a).
``(7) Bonds held by regulated investment companies.--If any
Build America bond is held by a regulated investment company,
the credit determined under subsection (a) shall be allowed
to shareholders of such company under procedures prescribed
by the Secretary.
``(8) Credits may be stripped.--Under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary--
``(A) In general.--There may be a separation (including at
issuance) of the ownership of a Build America bond and the
entitlement to the credit under this section with respect to
such bond. In case of any such separation, the credit under
this section shall be allowed to the person who on the credit
allowance date holds the instrument evidencing the
entitlement to the credit and not to the holder of the bond.
``(B) Certain rules to apply.--In the case of a separation
described in subparagraph (A), the rules of section 1286
shall apply to the Build America bond as if it were a
stripped bond and to the credit under this section as if it
were a stripped coupon.
``(9) Credits may be transferred.--Nothing in any law or
rule of law shall be construed to limit the transferability
of the credit or bond allowed by this section through sale
and repurchase agreements.
``(10) Reporting.--The Transportation Finance Corporation
shall submit reports similar to the reports required under
section 149(e).
``(11) Prohibition on use of highway trust fund.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds derived
from the Highway Trust Fund established under section 9503
shall be used to pay costs associated with the Build America
bonds issued under this section.''.
(b) Amendments to Other Code Sections.--
(1) Reporting.--Subsection (d) of section 6049 (relating to
returns regarding payments of interest) is amended by adding
at the end the following new paragraph:
``(8) Reporting of credit on build america bonds.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term
`interest' includes amounts includible in gross income under
section 54(d) and such amounts shall be treated as paid on
the credit allowance date (as defined in section 54(b)(4)).
``(B) Reporting to corporations, etc.--Except as otherwise
provided in regulations, in the case of any interest
described in subparagraph (A), subsection (b)(4) shall be
applied without regard to subparagraphs (A), (H), (I), (J),
(K), and (L)(i) of such subsection.
``(C) Regulatory authority.--The Secretary may prescribe
such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to carry out
the purposes of this paragraph, including regulations which
require more frequent or more detailed reporting.''.
(2) Treatment for estimated tax purposes.--
(A) Individual.--Section 6654 (relating to failure by
individual to pay estimated income tax) is amended by
redesignating subsection (m) as subsection (n) and by
inserting after subsection (l) the following new subsection:
``(m) Special Rule for Holders of Build America Bonds.--For
purposes of this section, the credit allowed by section 54 to
a taxpayer by reason of holding a Build America bond on a
credit allowance date shall be treated as if it were a
payment of estimated tax made by the taxpayer on such
date.''.
(B) Corporate.--Subsection (g) of section 6655 (relating to
failure by corporation to pay estimated income tax) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Special rule for holders of build america bonds.--For
purposes of this section, the credit allowed by section 54 to
a taxpayer by reason of holding a Build America bond on a
credit allowance date shall be treated as if it were a
payment of estimated tax made by the taxpayer on such
date.''.
(c) Clerical Amendments.--
(1) The table of subparts for part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 is amended by adding at the end the following new
item:
``Subpart H. Nonrefundable Credit for Holders of Build America
Bonds.''.
(2) Section 6401(b)(1) is amended by striking ``and G'' and
inserting ``G, and H''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to obligations issued after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 4. TRANSPORTATION FINANCE CORPORATION.
(a) Establishment and Status.--There is established a body
corporate to be known as the ``Transportation Finance
Corporation'' (hereafter in this section referred to as the
``Corporation''). The Corporation is not a department,
agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government,
and shall not be subject to title 31, United States Code.
(b) Principal Office; Application of Laws.--The principal
office and place of business of the Corporation shall be in
the District of Columbia, and, to the extent consistent with
this section, the District of Columbia Business Corporation
Act (D.C. Code 29-301 et seq.) shall apply.
(c) Functions of Corporation.--The Corporation shall--
(1) issue Build America bonds for the financing of
qualified projects as required under section 54 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
(2) establish and operate the Build America Trust Account
as required under section 54(j) of such Code,
(3) act as a centralized entity to provide financing for
qualified projects,
(4) leverage resources and stimulate public and private
investment in transportation infrastructure,
(5) encourage States to create additional opportunities for
the financing of transportation infrastructure and to provide
technical assistance to States, if needed,
(6) perform any other function the sole purpose of which is
to carry out the financing of qualified projects through
Build America bonds, and
(7) not later than February 15 of each year submit a report
to Congress--
(A) describing the activities of the Corporation for the
preceding year, and
(B) specifying whether the amounts deposited and expected
to be deposited in the Build America Trust Account are
sufficient to fully repay at maturity the principal of any
outstanding Build America bonds issued pursuant to such
section 54.
(d) Powers of Corporation.--The Corporation--
(1) may sue and be sued, complain and defend, in its
corporate name, in any court of competent jurisdiction,
(2) may adopt, alter, and use a seal, which shall be
judicially noticed,
(3) may prescribe, amend, and repeal such rules and
regulations as may be necessary for carrying out the
functions of the Corporation,
(4) may make and perform such contracts and other
agreements with any individual, corporation, or other private
or public entity however designated and wherever situated, as
may be necessary for carrying out the functions of the
Corporation,
(5) may determine and prescribe the manner in which its
obligations shall be incurred and its expenses allowed and
paid,
(6) may, as necessary for carrying out the functions of the
Corporation, employ and fix the compensation of employees and
officers,
(7) may lease, purchase, or otherwise acquire, own, hold,
improve, use, or otherwise deal in and with such property
(real, personal, or mixed) or any interest therein, wherever
situated, as may be necessary for carrying out the functions
of the Corporation,
(8) may accept gifts or donations of services or of
property (real, personal, or mixed), tangible or intangible,
in furtherance of the purposes of this Act, and
(9) shall have such other powers as may be necessary and
incident to carrying out this Act.
(e) Nonprofit Entity; Restriction on Use of Moneys;
Conflict of Interests; Audits.--
(1) Nonprofit entity.--The Corporation shall be a nonprofit
corporation and shall have no capital stock.
(2) Restriction.--No part of the Corporation's revenue,
earnings, or other income or property shall inure to the
benefit of any of its directors, officers, or employees, and
such
[[Page S1647]]
revenue, earnings, or other income or property shall only be
used for carrying out the purposes of this Act.
(3) Conflict of interests.--No director, officer, or
employee of the Corporation shall in any manner, directly or
indirectly participate in the deliberation upon or the
determination of any question affecting his or her personal
interests or the interests of any corporation, partnership,
or organization in which he or she is directly or indirectly
interested.
(4) Audits.--
(A) Audits by independent certified public accountants.--
(i) In general.--The Corporation's financial statements
shall be audited annually in accordance with generally
accepted auditing standards by independent certified public
accountants that are certified by a regulatory authority of a
State or other political subdivision of the United States.
The audits shall be conducted at the place or places where
the accounts of the Corporation are normally kept. All books,
accounts, financial records, reports, files, and all other
papers, things, or property belonging to or in use by the
Corporation and necessary to facilitate the audit shall be
made available to the person or persons conducting the
audits, and full facilities for verifying transactions with
the balances or securities held by depositories, fiscal
agents, and custodians shall be afforded to such person or
persons.
(ii) Reporting requirements.--The report of each annual
audit described in clause (i) shall be included in the annual
report required by subsection (c)(8).
(B) Record keeping requirements.--The Corporation shall
ensure that each recipient of assistance from the Corporation
keeps--
(i) separate accounts with respect to such assistance,
(ii) such records as may be reasonably necessary to fully
disclose--
(I) the amount and the disposition by such recipient of the
proceeds of such assistance,
(II) the total cost of the project or undertaking in
connection with which such assistance is given or used, and
the extent to which such costs are for a qualified project,
and
(III) the amount and nature of that portion of the cost of
the project or undertaking supplied by other sources, and
(iii) such other records as will facilitate an effective
audit.
(C) Audit and examination of books.--The Corporation shall
ensure that the Corporation, or any of the Corporation's duly
authorized representatives, shall have access for the purpose
of audit and examination to any books, documents, papers, and
records of any recipient of assistance from the Corporation
that are pertinent to such assistance.
(f) Exemption From Taxes.--
(1) In general.--The Corporation, including its franchise,
capital, reserves, surplus, sinking funds, mortgages or other
security holdings, and income, shall be exempt from all
taxation now or hereafter imposed by the United States, by
any territory, dependency, or possession thereof, or by any
State, county, municipality, or local taxing authority,
except that any real property of the Corporation shall be
subject to State, territorial, county, municipal, or local
taxation to the same extent according to its value as other
real property is taxed.
(2) Financial obligations.--Build America bonds or other
obligations issued by the Corporation and the interest on or
tax credits with respect to its bonds or other obligations
shall not be subject to taxation by any State, county,
municipality, or local taxing authority.
(g) Assistance for Transportation Purposes.--
(1) In general.--In order to carry out the corporate
functions described in subsection (c), the Corporation shall
be eligible to receive discretionary grants, contracts,
gifts, contributions, or technical assistance from any
Federal department or agency, to the extent permitted by law.
(2) Agreement.--In order to receive any assistance
described in this subsection, the Corporation shall enter
into an agreement with the Federal department or agency
providing such assistance, under which the Corporation
agrees--
(A) to use such assistance to provide funding and technical
assistance only for activities which the Board of Directors
of the Corporation determines are consistent with the
corporate functions described in subsection (c), and
(B) to review the activities of State transportation
agencies and other entities receiving assistance from the
Corporation to assure that the corporate functions described
in subsection (c) are carried out.
(3) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to establish the Corporation as a department,
agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government,
or to establish the members of the Board of Directors of the
Corporation, or the officers and employees of the
Corporation, as officers or employees of the United States
Government.
(h) Management of Corporation.--
(1) Board of directors; membership; designation of
chairperson and vice chairperson; appointment considerations;
term; vacancies.--
(A) Board of directors.--The management of the Corporation
shall be vested in a board of directors composed of 15
members appointed by the President, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate.
(B) Chairperson and vice chairperson.--The President shall
designate 1 member of the Board to serve as Chairperson of
the Board and 1 member to serve as Vice Chairperson of the
Board.
(C) Individuals from private life.--Eleven members of the
Board shall be appointed from private life.
(D) Federal officers and employees.--Four members of the
Board shall be appointed from among officers and employees of
agencies of the United States concerned with infrastructure
development.
(E) Appointment considerations.--All members of the Board
shall be appointed on the basis of their understanding of and
sensitivity to infrastructure development processes. Members
of the Board shall be appointed so that not more than 8
members of the Board are members of any 1 political party.
(F) Terms.--Members of the Board shall be appointed for
terms of 3 years, except that of the members first appointed,
as designated by the President at the time of their
appointment, 5 shall be appointed for terms of 1 year and 5
shall be appointed for terms of 2 years.
(G) Vacancies.--A member of the Board appointed to fill a
vacancy occurring before the expiration of the term for which
that member's predecessor was appointed shall be appointed
only for the remainder of that term. Upon the expiration of a
member's term, the member shall continue to serve until a
successor is appointed and is qualified.
(2) Compensation, actual, necessary, and transportation
expenses.--Members of the Board shall serve without
additional compensation, but may be reimbursed for actual and
necessary expenses not exceeding $100 per day, and for
transportation expenses, while engaged in their duties on
behalf of the Corporation.
(3) Quorum.--A majority of the Board shall constitute a
quorum.
(4) President of corporation.--The Board of Directors shall
appoint a president of the Corporation on such terms as the
Board may determine.
______
By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr.
Kerry):
S. 429. A bill to establish the Upper Housatonic Valley National
Heritage Area in the State of Connecticut and the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that is a
first step in giving the Upper Housatonic Valley, a nationally
significant area, the acknowledgment and resources it deserves.
Designation of the upper Housatonic Valley as a national heritage area
will enhance and foster public-private partnerships to educate
residents and visitors about the region; improve the area's economy
through business investment, job expansion, and tourism; and protect
the area's natural and cultural heritage.
The Upper Housatonic Valley is a unique cultural and geographical
region that encompasses in the Housatonic River watershed, extending 60
miles from Lanesboro, MA to Kent, CT. The valley has made significant
national contributions through literary, artistic, musical, and
architectural achievements; as the backdrop for important Revolutionary
War era events; as the cradle of the iron, paper, and electrical
industries; and as home to key figures and events in the abolitionist
and civil rights movements. It includes five National Historic
Landmarks and four National Natural Landmarks.
The Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area Act would
officially designate the region as part of the National Park Service
system. It would also authorize funding for a variety of activities
that conserve the significant natural, historical, cultural, and scenic
resources, and that provide educational and recreational opportunities
in the area. The Upper Housatonic Valley is part of our national
identity. Making it a National Heritage Area will preserve and develop
the experiences that connect us to our history and heritage as
Americans.
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. 429
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 ``Upper Housatonic Valley
National Heritage Area Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
[[Page S1648]]
(1) The upper Housatonic Valley, encompassing 29 towns in
the hilly terrain of western Massachusetts and northwestern
Connecticut, is a singular geographical and cultural region
that has made significant national contributions through its
literary, artistic, musical, and architectural achievements,
its iron, paper, and electrical equipment industries, and its
scenic beautification and environmental conservation efforts.
(2) The upper Housatonic Valley has 139 properties and
historic districts listed on the National Register of
Historic Places including--
(A) five National Historic Landmarks--
(i) Edith Wharton's home, The Mount, Lenox, Massachusetts;
(ii) Herman Melville's home, Arrowhead, Pittsfield,
Massachusetts;
(iii) W.E.B. DuBois' Boyhood Homesite, Great Barrington,
Massachusetts;
(iv) Mission House, Stockbridge, Massachusetts; and
(v) Crane and Company Old Stone Mill Rag Room, Dalton,
Massachusetts; and
(B) four National Natural Landmarks--
(i) Bartholomew's Cobble, Sheffield, Massachusetts, and
Salisbury, Connecticut;
(ii) Beckley Bog, Norfolk, Connecticut;
(iii) Bingham Bog, Salisbury, Connecticut; and
(iv) Cathedral Pines, Cornwall, Connecticut.
(3) Writers, artists, musicians, and vacationers have
visited the region for more than 150 years to enjoy its
scenic wonders, making it one of the country's leading
cultural resorts.
(4) The upper Housatonic Valley has made significant
national cultural contributions through such writers as
Herman Melville, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Edith Wharton, and
W.E.B. DuBois, artists Daniel Chester French and Norman
Rockwell, and the performing arts centers of Tanglewood,
Music Mountain, Norfolk (Connecticut) Chamber Music Festival,
Jacob's Pillow, and Shakespeare & Company.
(5) The upper Housatonic Valley is noted for its pioneering
achievements in the iron, paper, and electrical generation
industries and has cultural resources to interpret those
industries.
(6) The region became a national leader in scenic
beautification and environmental conservation efforts
following the era of industrialization and deforestation and
maintains a fabric of significant conservation areas
including the meandering Housatonic River.
(7) Important historical events related to the American
Revolution, Shays' Rebellion, and early civil rights took
place in the upper Housatonic Valley.
(8) The region had an American Indian presence going back
10,000 years and Mohicans had a formative role in contact
with Europeans during the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries.
(9) The Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area has
been proposed in order to heighten appreciation of the
region, preserve its natural and historical resources, and
improve the quality of life and economy of the area.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are as follows:
(1) To establish the Upper Housatonic Valley National
Heritage Area in the State of Connecticut and the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
(2) To implement the national heritage area alternative as
described in the document entitled ``Upper Housatonic Valley
National Heritage Area Feasibility Study, 2003''.
(3) To provide a management framework to foster a close
working relationship with all levels of government, the
private sector, and the local communities in the upper
Housatonic Valley region to conserve the region's heritage
while continuing to pursue compatible economic opportunities.
(4) To assist communities, organizations, and citizens in
the State of Connecticut and the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts in identifying, preserving, interpreting, and
developing the historical, cultural, scenic, and natural
resources of the region for the educational and inspirational
benefit of current and future generations.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Heritage area.--The term ``Heritage Area'' means the
Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area, established
in section 4.
(2) Management entity.--The term ``Management Entity''
means the management entity for the Heritage Area designated
by section 4(d).
(3) Management plan.--The term ``Management Plan'' means
the management plan for the Heritage Area specified in
section 6.
(4) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled
``Boundary Map Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage
Area'', numbered P17/80,000, and dated February 2003.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(6) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of
Connecticut and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
SEC. 4. UPPER HOUSATONIC VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA.
(a) Establishment.--There is established the Upper
Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area.
(b) Boundaries.--The Heritage Area shall be comprised of--
(1) part of the Housatonic River's watershed, which extends
60 miles from Lanesboro, Massachusetts to Kent, Connecticut;
(2) the towns of Canaan, Colebrook, Cornwall, Kent,
Norfolk, North Canaan, Salisbury, Sharon, and Warren in
Connecticut;
(3) the towns of Alford, Becket, Dalton, Egremont, Great
Barrington, Hancock, Hinsdale, Lanesboro, Lee, Lenox,
Monterey, Mount Washington, New Marlboro, Pittsfield,
Richmond, Sheffield, Stockbridge, Tyringham, Washington, and
West Stockbridge in Massachusetts; and
(4) the land and water within the boundaries of the
Heritage Area, as depicted on the map.
(c) Availability of Map.--The map shall be on file and
available for public inspection in the appropriate offices of
the National Park Service, Department of the Interior.
(d) Management Entity.--The Upper Housatonic Valley
National Heritage Area, Inc. shall be the management entity
for the Heritage Area.
SEC. 5. AUTHORITIES, PROHIBITIONS AND DUTIES OF THE
MANAGEMENT ENTITY.
(a) Duties of the Management Entity.--To further the
purposes of the Heritage Area, the management entity shall--
(1) prepare and submit a management plan for the Heritage
Area to the Secretary in accordance with section 6;
(2) assist units of local government, regional planning
organizations, and nonprofit organizations in implementing
the approved management plan by--
(A) carrying out programs and projects that recognize,
protect and enhance important resource values within the
Heritage Area;
(B) establishing and maintaining interpretive exhibits and
programs within the Heritage Area;
(C) developing recreational and educational opportunities
in the Heritage Area;
(D) increasing public awareness of and appreciation for
natural, historical, scenic, and cultural resources of the
Heritage Area;
(E) protecting and restoring historic sites and buildings
in the Heritage Area that are consistent with heritage area
themes;
(F) ensuring that clear, consistent, and appropriate signs
identifying points of public access and sites of interest are
posted throughout the Heritage Area; and
(G) promoting a wide range of partnerships among
governments, organizations and individuals to further the
purposes of the Heritage Area;
(3) consider the interests of diverse units of government,
businesses, organizations and individuals in the Heritage
Area in the preparation and implementation of the management
plan;
(4) conduct meetings open to the public at least semi-
annually regarding the development and implementation of the
management plan;
(5) submit an annual report to the Secretary for any fiscal
year in which the management entity receives Federal funds
under this Act, setting forth its accomplishments, expenses,
and income, including grants to any other entities during the
year for which the report is made;
(6) make available for audit for any fiscal year in which
it receives Federal funds under this Act, all information
pertaining to the expenditure of such funds and any matching
funds, and require in all agreements authorizing expenditures
of Federal funds by other organizations, that the receiving
organizations make available for such audit all records and
other information pertaining to the expenditure of such
funds; and
(7) encourage by appropriate means economic viability that
is consistent with the purposes of the Heritage Area.
(b) Authorities.--The management entity may, for the
purposes of preparing and implementing the management plan
for the Heritage Area, use Federal funds made available
through this Act to--
(1) make grants to the State of Connecticut and the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, their political subdivisions,
nonprofit organizations and other persons;
(2) enter into cooperative agreements with or provide
technical assistance to the State of Connecticut and the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, their political jurisdictions,
nonprofit organizations, and other interested parties;
(3) hire and compensate staff, which shall include
individuals with expertise in natural, cultural, and
historical resources protection, and heritage programming;
(4) obtain money or services from any source including any
that are provided under any other Federal law or program;
(5) contract for goods or services; and
(6) undertake to be a catalyst for any other activity that
furthers the purposes of the Heritage Area and is consistent
with the approved management plan.
(c) Prohibitions on the Acquisition of Real Property.--The
management entity may not use Federal funds received under
this Act to acquire real property, but may use any other
source of funding, including other Federal funding outside
this authority, intended for the acquisition of real
property.
SEC. 6. MANAGEMENT PLAN.
(a) In General.--The management plan for the Heritage Area
shall--
(1) include comprehensive policies, strategies and
recommendations for conservation, funding, management and
development of the Heritage Area;
(2) take into consideration existing State, county, and
local plans in the development of the management plan and its
implementation;
[[Page S1649]]
(3) include a description of actions that governments,
private organizations, and individuals have agreed to take to
protect the natural, historical and cultural resources of the
Heritage Area;
(4) specify the existing and potential sources of funding
to protect, manage, and develop the Heritage Area in the
first 5 years of implementation;
(5) include an inventory of the natural, historical,
cultural, educational, scenic, and recreational resources of
the Heritage Area related to the themes of the Heritage Area
that should be preserved, restored, managed, developed, or
maintained;
(6) recommend policies and strategies for resource
management that consider and detail the application of
appropriate land and water management techniques including,
but not limited to, the development of intergovernmental and
interagency cooperative agreements to protect the Heritage
Area's natural, historical, cultural, educational, scenic and
recreational resources;
(7) describe a program of implementation for the management
plan including plans for resource protection, restoration,
construction, and specific commitments for implementation
that have been made by the management entity or any
government, organization, or individual for the first 5 years
of implementation;
(8) include an analysis and recommendations for ways in
which local, State, and Federal programs, including the role
of the National Park Service in the Heritage Area, may best
be coordinated to further the purposes of this Act; and
(9) include an interpretive plan for the Heritage Area.
(b) Deadline and Termination of Funding.--
(1) Deadline.--The management entity shall submit the
management plan to the Secretary for approval within 3 years
after funds are made available for this Act.
(2) Termination of funding.--If the management plan is not
submitted to the Secretary in accordance with this
subsection, the management entity shall not qualify for
Federal funding under this Act until such time as the
management plan is submitted to and approved by the
Secretary.
SEC. 7. DUTIES AND AUTHORITIES OF THE SECRETARY.
(a) Technical and Financial Assistance.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may, upon the request of the
management entity, provide technical assistance on a
reimbursable or non-reimbursable basis and financial
assistance to the Heritage Area to develop and implement the
approved management plan. The Secretary is authorized to
enter into cooperative agreements with the management entity
and other public or private entities for this purpose. In
assisting the Heritage Area, the Secretary shall give
priority to actions that in general assist in--
(A) conserving the significant natural, historical,
cultural, and scenic resources of the Heritage Area; and
(B) providing educational, interpretive, and recreational
opportunities consistent with the purposes of the Heritage
Area.
(2) Spending for non-federally owned property.--The
Secretary may spend Federal funds directly on non-federally
owned property to further the purposes of this Act,
especially in assisting units of government in appropriate
treatment of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and
objects listed or eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places.
(b) Approval and Disapproval of Management Plan.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall approve or disapprove
the management plan not later than 90 days after receiving
the management plan.
(2) Criteria for approval.--In determining the approval of
the management plan, the Secretary shall consider whether--
(A) the management entity is representative of the diverse
interests of the Heritage Area including governments, natural
and historic resource protection organizations, educational
institutions, businesses, and recreational organizations;
(B) the management entity has afforded adequate
opportunity, including public hearings, for public and
governmental involvement in the preparation of the management
plan;
(C) the resource protection and interpretation strategies
contained in the management plan, if implemented, would
adequately protect the natural, historical, and cultural
resources of the Heritage Area; and
(D) the Secretary has received adequate assurances from the
appropriate State and local officials whose support is needed
to ensure the effective implementation of the State and local
aspects of the management plan.
(3) Action following disapproval.--If the Secretary
disapproves the management plan, the Secretary shall advise
the management entity in writing of the reasons therefore and
shall make recommendations for revisions to the management
plan. The Secretary shall approve or disapprove a proposed
revision within 60 days after the date it is submitted.
(4) Approval of amendments.--Substantial amendments to the
management plan shall be reviewed by the Secretary and
approved in the same manner as provided for the original
management plan. The management entity shall not use Federal
funds authorized by this Act to implement any amendments
until the Secretary has approved the amendments.
SEC. 8. DUTIES OF OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES.
Any Federal agency conducting or supporting activities
directly affecting the Heritage Area shall--
(1) consult with the Secretary and the management entity
with respect to such activities;
(2) cooperate with the Secretary and the management entity
in carrying out their duties under this Act and, to the
maximum extent practicable, coordinate such activities with
the carrying out of such duties; and,
(3) to the maximum extent practicable, conduct or support
such activities in a manner which the management entity
determines will not have an adverse effect on the Heritage
Area.
SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated for
the purposes of this Act not more than $1,000,000 for any
fiscal year. Not more than a total of $10,000,000 may be
appropriated for the Heritage Area under this Act.
(b) Matching Funds.--Federal funding provided under this
Act may not exceed 50 percent of the total cost of any
assistance or grant provided or authorized under this Act.
SEC. 10. SUNSET.
The authority of the Secretary to provide assistance under
this Act shall terminate on the day occurring 15 years after
the date of enactment of the Act.
______
By Ms. CANTWELL:
S. 430. A bill to arrest methamphetamine abuse in the United States;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to
ensure that law enforcement has the resources it needs to address and
eventually solve the methamphetamine crisis in this country. My bill is
entitled the Arrest Methamphetamine Act of 2005. It would create a new
formula-based grant program for States that have enacted sophisticated
laws governing the sale of the precursor products used to make meth. My
legislation is designed to help communities cope with the myriad
problems being caused by meth, and ultimately to stop the growing meth
epidemic in its tracks.
Never before has creating a separate program to finance the battle
against meth been so critical. I am dismayed to see that the
President's fiscal year 2006 budget request mortally wounds the COPS
program and that his budget finishes off the already slashed and
reconstituted Byrne grants program. These two mechanisms have provided
anti-meth funds for years now, and each year, the administration's
efforts to undermine the COPS program and the Byrne grants program
further jeopardize law enforcement efforts against meth and the many
other important law enforcement-related initiatives that these two
programs have carried out for so many years. While I plan to work hard
with my colleagues to restore funding to the COPS and Byrne programs
generally, I do not see that our efforts to save these programs every
year from the administration's chopping block is the best way to ensure
that necessary financial resources are there for all aspects of the
meth fight.
While the administration was busy slashing the $499 million COPS
program all the way down to $22 million, the meth problems that the
COPS program addresses only got worse. Meth abuse, as an epidemic,
started in the West and the Midwest, but has more recently begun to
move east. Meth use and production is exploding in North Carolina.
Georgia law enforcement officials recently had one of the largest meth
busts on record, and Missouri, Iowa and Minnesota have been inundated
by severe meth problems. In 2003, methamphetamine was identified as the
greatest drug threat by 90.9 percent of local law enforcement agencies
in the Pacific region. By comparison, only 5.3 percent of agencies
reporting identified cocaine as their biggest threat, followed by
marijuana at 2.1 percent and heroin at less than 1 percent.
This epidemic of meth has permeated the most urban and most rural
communities. Meth labs range in sophistication from being run by multi-
national organized crime rings to back alley cook shops, and they exist
in crudely converted farm houses and in illicit high-financed
facilities run by Mexican drug rings. Meth victims are of all ages, and
there is heart-wrenching data and anecdotes on meth addiction of
mothers, and the impact of adult meth addiction on their very young
children.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
[[Page S1650]]
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 430
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 ``Arrest Methamphetamine Act
of 2005''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Methamphetamine (meth) is an extremely dangerous and
highly addictive drug.
(2) Methamphetamine use contributes to the perpetration of
violent crimes, particularly burglary, child abuse, and
crimes of substantial cost and personal pain to the victims,
including identity theft.
(3) Methamphetamine labs produce hazardous conditions
because of their use of chemicals such as anhydrous ammonia,
ether, sulfuric acid, and other toxins which are volatile,
corrosive and poisonous. When these substances are illegally
disposed of in rivers, streams, and other dump areas,
explosions and serious environmental damage can and does
result.
(4) Since 2001, Federal funding has been provided through
the Department of Justice COPS and Byrne Grant programs to
address methamphetamine enforcement and clean up. Since 2002,
although the methamphetamine problem has been growing and
spreading across the United States, COPS funding has been cut
each successive year, from $70,500,000 in 2002, to under
$52,000,000 in 2005.
(5) As methamphetamine has impacted more States each year,
the dwindling Federal funds have been parsed into smaller
amounts. Each State deserves greater Federal support and a
permanent funding mechanism to confront the challenging
problem of methamphetamine abuse.
(6) Permanent Federal funding support for meth enforcement
and clean-up is critical to the efforts of State and local
law enforcement to reduce the use, manufacture, and sale of
methamphetamine, and thus, reduce the crime rate.
(7) It is necessary for the Federal Government to establish
a long-term commitment to confronting methamphetamine use,
sale, and manufacture by creating a permanent funding
mechanism to assist States.
SEC. 3. CONFRONTING THE USE OF METHAMPHETAMINE.
Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act
of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``PART HH--CONFRONTING USE OF METHAMPHETAMINE
``SEC. 2991. AUTHORITY TO MAKE GRANTS TO ADDRESS PUBLIC
SAFETY AND METHAMPHETAMINE MANUFACTURING, SALE,
AND USE.
``(a) Purpose and Program Authority.--
``(1) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this part to assist
States--
``(A) to carry out programs to address the manufacture,
sale, and use of methamphetamine drugs; and
``(B) to improve the ability of State and local government
institutions of to carry out such programs.
``(2) Grant authorization.--The Attorney General, through
the Bureau of Justice Assistance in the Office of Justice
Programs may make grants to States to address the
manufacture, sale, and use of methamphetamine to enhance
public safety.
``(3) Grant projects to address methamphetamine manufacture
sale and use.--Grants made under subsection (a) may be used
for programs, projects, and other activities to--
``(A) arrest individuals violating laws related to the use,
manufacture, or sale of methamphetamine;
``(B) undertake methamphetamine clandestine lab seizures
and environmental clean up;
``(C) provide for community-based education, awareness, and
prevention;
``(D) provide child support and family services related to
assist users of methamphetamine and their families;
``(E) facilitate intervention in methamphetamine use;
``(F) facilitate treatment for methamphetamine addiction;
``(G) provide Drug Court and Family Drug Court services to
address methamphetamine;
``(H) provide community policing to address the problem of
methamphetamine use;
``(I) support State and local health department and
environmental agency services deployed to address
methamphetamine;
``(J) prosecute violations of laws related to the use,
manufacture, or sale of methamphetamine; and
``(K) procure equipment, technology, or support systems, or
pay for resources, if the applicant for such a grant
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that
expenditures for such purposes would result in the reduction
in the use, sale, and manufacture of methamphetamine.
``(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this part, a State shall submit to the Attorney General
assurances that the State has implemented, or will implement
prior to receipt of a grant under this section laws,
policies, and programs that restrict the wholesale and limit
sale of products used as precursors in the manufacture of
methamphetamine.
``SEC. 2992. APPLICATIONS.
``(a) In General.--No grant may be made under this part
unless an application has been submitted to, and approved by,
the Attorney General.
``(b) Application.--An application for a grant under this
part shall be submitted in such form, and contain such
information, as the Attorney General may prescribe by
regulation or guidelines.
``(c) Contents.--In accordance with the regulations or
guidelines established by the Attorney General, each
application for a grant under this part shall--
``(1) include a long-term statewide strategy that--
``(A) reflects consultation with appropriate public and
private agencies, tribal governments, and community groups;
``(B) represents an integrated approach to addressing the
use, manufacture, and sale of methamphetamine that includes--
``(i) arrest and clandestine lab seizure;
``(ii) training for law enforcement, fire and other
relevant emergency services, health care providers, and child
and family service providers;
``(iii) intervention;
``(iv) child and family services;
``(v) treatment;
``(vi) drug court;
``(vii) family drug court;
``(viii) health department support;
``(ix) environmental agency support;
``(x) prosecution; and
``(xi) evaluation of the effectiveness of the program and
description of the efficacy of components of the program for
the purpose of establishing best practices that can be widely
replicated by other States; and
``(C) where appropriate, incorporate Indian Tribal
participation to the extent that an Indian Tribe is impacted
by the use, manufacture, or sale of methamphetamine;
``(2) identify related governmental and community
initiatives which complement or will be coordinated with the
proposal;
``(3) certify that there has been appropriate coordination
with all affected State and local government institutions and
that the State has involved counties and other units of local
government, when appropriate, in the development, expansion,
modification, operation or improvement of programs to address
the use, manufacture, or sale of methamphetamine;
``(4) certify that the State will share funds received
under this part with counties and other units of local
government, taking into account the burden placed on these
units of government when they are required to address the
use, manufacture, or sale of methamphetamine;
``(5) assess the impact, if any, of the increase in police
resources on other components of the criminal justice system;
``(6) explain how the grant will be utilized to enhance
government response to the use, manufacture, and sale of
methamphetamine;
``(7) demonstrate a specific public safety need;
``(8) explain the applicant's inability to address the need
without Federal assistance;
``(9) specify plans for obtaining necessary support and
continuing the proposed program, project, or activity
following the conclusion of Federal support; and
``(10) certify that funds received under this part will be
used to supplement, not supplant, other Federal, State, and
local funds.
``SEC. 2993. PLANNING GRANTS.
``(a) Eligible Entity.--The Attorney General through the
Bureau of Justice Assistance in the Office of Justice
Programs, may make grants under this section to States,
Indian tribal governments, and multi-jurisdictional or
regional consortia thereof to develop a comprehensive,
cooperative strategy to address the manufacture, sale, and
use of methamphetamine to enhance public safety.
``(b) Authorization.--The Attorney General is authorized to
provide grants under this section not exceeding $100,000 per
eligible entity for such entity to--
``(1) define the problem of the use, manufacture, or sale
of methamphetamine within the jurisdiction of the entity;
``(2) describe the public and private organization to be
involved in addressing methamphetamine use, manufacture, or
sale; and
``(3) describe the manner in which these organizations will
participate in a comprehensive, cooperative, and integrated
plan to address the use, manufacture, or sale of
methamphetamine.
``SEC. 2994. ENFORCEMENT GRANTS.
``Of the total amount appropriated for this part in any
fiscal year, the amount remaining after setting aside the
amount to be reserved to carry out section 2993 shall be
allocated to States as follows:
``(1) 0.25 percent or $250,000, whichever is greater, shall
be allocated to each of the States.
``(2) Of the total funds remaining after the allocation
under paragraph (1), there shall be allocated to each State
an amount which bears the same ratio to the amount of
remaining funds described in this paragraph as the population
of such State bears to the population of all the States.
``SEC. 2995. NATIONAL ACTIVITIES.
``The Attorney General is authorized--
``(1) to collect systematic data on the effectiveness of
the programs assisted under this part in reducing the use,
manufacture, and sale of methamphetamine;
``(2) to establish a national clearinghouse of information
on effective programs to address the use, manufacture, and
sale of methamphetamine that shall disseminate to State and
local agencies describing--
[[Page S1651]]
``(A) the results of research on efforts to reduce the use,
manufacture, and sale of methamphetamine; and
``(B) information on effective programs, best practices and
Federal resources to--
``(i) reduce the use, manufacture, and sale of
methamphetamine; and
``(ii) address the physical, social, and family problems
that result from the use of methamphetamine through the
activities of intervention, treatment, drug courts, and
family drug courts;
``(3) to establish a program within the Department of
Justice to facilitate the sharing of knowledge in best
practices among States addressing the use, manufacture and
sale of methamphetamine through State-to-State mentoring, or
other means; and
``(4) to provide technical assistance to State agencies and
local agencies implementing programs and securing resources
to implement effective programs to reduce the use,
manufacture, and sale of methamphetamine.
``SEC. 2996. FUNDING.
``(a) Grants for the Purpose of Confronting the Use of
Methamphetamine.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this part--
``(1) $100,000,000 for each fiscal year 2006 and 2007; and
``(2) $200,000,000 for each fiscal year 2008, 2009, and
2010.
``(b) National Activities.--For the purposes of section
2995, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as
are necessary.''.
SEC. 4. STATEMENT OF CONGRESS REGARDING AVAILABILITY AND
ILLEGAL IMPORTATION OF PSEUDOEPHEDRINE FROM
CANADA.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) pseudoephedrine is a particularly abused basic
precursor chemical used in the manufacture of the dangerous
narcotic methamphetamine;
(2) the Federal Government, working in cooperation with
narcotics agents of State and local governments and the
private sector, has tightened the control of pseudoephedrine
in the United States in recent years;
(3) in many States, pseudoephedrine can only be purchased
in small quantity bottles or blister packs, and laws
throughout various States are gradually becoming tougher,
reflecting the increasing severity of America's
methamphetamine problem; however, the widespread presence of
large containers of pseudoephedrine from Canada at
methamphetamine laboratories and dumpsites in the United
States, despite efforts of law enforcement agencies to stem
the flow of these containers into the United States,
demonstrates the strength of the demand for, and the inherent
difficulties in stemming the flow of, these containers from
neighboring Canada; and
(4) Canada lacks a comprehensive legislative framework for
addressing the pseudoephedrine trafficking problem.
(b) Call for Action by Canada.--Congress strongly urges the
President to seek commitments from the Government of Canada
to begin immediately to take effective measures to stem the
widespread and increasing availability in Canada and the
illegal importation into the United States of
pseudoephedrine.
______
By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Durbin):
S. 431. A bill to establish a program to award grants to improve and
maintain sites honoring Presidents of the United States; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague,
Senator Durbin, to introduce the Presidential Sites Improvement Act of
2005. As we look forward to celebrating President's Day this coming
Monday, I can think of no better way to honor our former Chief
Executives than by passing this important piece of legislation.
The Presidential Sites Improvement Act would create a new and
innovative partnership with public and private entities to preserve and
maintain Presidential sites, such as birthplaces, homes, memorials, and
tombs. It is our duty to preserve these sites so that future
generations of Americans can gain a better understanding of those who
influenced the development of our great Nation.
In an era when innovative technology has been incorporated into the
curriculum in schools throughout the country, we often forget that one
of the best learning tools is that which a child can touch and see.
Visiting the birthplace or home of the same individuals talked about in
the classroom or read about online provides a completely different
atmosphere to appreciate history. The opportunity to visit the actual
birthplaces, homes, memorials, and tombs provides a real-life glimpse
into the lives of our former Presidents.
Currently, family foundations, colleges and universities, libraries,
historical societies, historic preservation organizations, and other
non-profit organizations own the majority of these sites. These
entities often have little funding and are unable to meet the demands
of maintaining such important sites because operating costs must be met
before maintenance needs. As a result, these sites are left to
deteriorate slowly.
I have visited many of the Presidential historic sites throughout my
home State of Ohio, a State that has been the home of eight Presidents.
I was disturbed during one such visit to the Ulysses S. Grant house.
There, I saw the discoloration and falling plaster due to water damage.
At the home of President Warren Harding, the front porch was pulling
away from the house--the very same porch where President Harding
delivered his now famous campaign speeches. Fortunately, we were able
to obtain funding to prevent these two historic treasures from
deteriorating further. We need to continue to provide Federal
assistance for maintenance projects today in order to prevent larger
maintenance problems tomorrow.
These sites are far too important to let slowly decay. Our
legislation would authorize grants, administered by the National Park
Service, for maintenance and improvement projects on Presidential sites
that are not federally owned or managed. A portion of the funds would
be set aside for sites that are in need of emergency assistance. To
administer this new program, this legislation would establish a five-
member committee, including the Director of the National Park Service,
a member of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and a State
historic preservation officer. This committee would make grant
recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior. Each grant would
require that half of the funds come from non-Federal sources. Up to $5
million would be made available annually.
The Presidential Sites Improvement Act would make sure that every
American has the chance to appreciate a real piece of history--a chance
at understanding the lives of the great men who have led our Nation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation I have just
introduced be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 431
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 ``Presidential Sites
Improvement Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) there are many sites honoring Presidents located
throughout the United States, including Presidential
birthplaces, homes, museums, burial sites, and tombs;
(2) most of the sites are owned, operated, and maintained
by non-Federal entities such as State and local agencies,
family foundations, colleges and universities, libraries,
historical societies, historic preservation organizations,
and other nonprofit organizations;
(3) Presidential sites are often expensive to maintain;
(4) many Presidential sites are in need of capital,
technological, and interpretive display improvements for
which funding is insufficient or unavailable; and
(5) to promote understanding of the history of the United
States by recognizing and preserving historic sites linked to
Presidents of the United States, the Federal Government
should provide grants for the maintenance and improvement of
Presidential sites.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Grant commission.--The term ``Grant Commission'' means
the Presidential Site Grant Commission established by section
4(d).
(2) Presidential site.--The term ``Presidential site''
means a site that is--
(A) related to a President of the United States;
(B) of national significance;
(C) managed, maintained, and operated for, and is
accessible to, the public; and
(D) owned or operated by--
(i) a State; or
(ii) a private institution, organization, or person.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National
Park Service.
SEC. 4. GRANTS FOR PRESIDENTIAL SITES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall award grants for major
maintenance and improvement projects at Presidential sites to
owners or operators of Presidential sites in accordance with
this section.
(b) Use of Grant Funds.--
(1) In general.--A grant awarded under this section may be
used for--
[[Page S1652]]
(A) repairs or capital improvements at a Presidential site
(including new construction for necessary modernization) such
as--
(i) installation or repair of heating or air conditioning
systems, security systems, or electric service; or
(ii) modifications at a Presidential site to achieve
compliance with requirements under titles II and III of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12131 et
seq.); and
(B) interpretive improvements to enhance public
understanding and enjoyment of a Presidential site.
(2) Allocation of funds.--
(A) In general.--Of the funds made available to award
grants under this Act--
(i) 15 percent shall be used for emergency projects, as
determined by the Secretary;
(ii) 65 percent shall be used for grants for Presidential
sites with--
(I) a 3-year average annual operating budget of less than
$700,000 (not including the amount of any grant received
under this section); and
(II) an endowment in an amount that is less than 3 times
the annual operating budget of the site; and
(iii) 20 percent shall be used for grants for Presidential
sites with--
(I) an annual operating budget of $700,000 or more (not
including the amount of any grant received under this
section); and
(II) an endowment in an amount that is equal to or more
than 3 times the annual operating budget of the site.
(B) Unexpended funds.--If any funds allocated for a
category of projects described in subparagraph (A) are
unexpended, the Secretary may use the funds to award grants
for another category of projects described in that
subparagraph.
(c) Application and Award Procedure.--
(1) In general.--Not later than a date to be determined by
the Secretary, an owner or operator of a Presidential site
may submit to the Secretary an application for a grant under
this section.
(2) Involvement of grant commission.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall forward each
application received under paragraph (1) to the Grant
Commission.
(B) Consideration by grant commission.--Not later than 60
days after receiving an application from the Secretary under
subparagraph (A), the Grant Commission shall return the
application to the Secretary with a recommendation of whether
the proposed project should be awarded a Presidential site
grant.
(C) Recommendation of grant commission.--In making a
decision to award a Presidential site grant under this
section, the Secretary shall take into consideration any
recommendation of the Grant Commission.
(3) Award.--Not later than 180 days after receiving an
application for a Presidential site grant under paragraph
(1), the Secretary shall--
(A) award a Presidential site grant to the applicant; or
(B) notify the applicant, in writing, of the decision of
the Secretary not to award a Presidential site grant.
(4) Matching requirements.--
(A) In general.--The Federal share of the cost of a project
at a Presidential site for which a grant is awarded under
this section shall not exceed 50 percent.
(B) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the cost
of a project at a Presidential site for which a grant is
awarded under this section may be provided in cash or in
kind.
(d) Presidential Site Grant Commission.--
(1) In general.--There is established the Presidential Site
Grant Commission.
(2) Composition.--The Grant Commission shall be composed
of--
(A) the Director of the National Park Service; and
(B) 4 members appointed by the Secretary as follows:
(i) A State historic preservation officer.
(ii) A representative of the National Trust for Historic
Preservation.
(iii) A representative of a site described in subsection
(b)(2)(A)(ii).
(iv) A representative of a site described in subsection
(b)(2)(A)(iii).
(3) Term.--A member of the Grant Commission shall serve a
term of 2 years.
(4) Duties.--The Grant Commission shall--
(A) review applications for Presidential site grants
received under subsection (c); and
(B) recommend to the Secretary projects for which
Presidential site grants should be awarded.
(5) Ineligibility of sites during term of representative.--
A site described in clause (iii) or (iv) of paragraph (2)(B)
shall be ineligible for a grant under this Act during the 2-
year period in which a representative of the site serves on
the Grant Commission.
(6) Nonapplicability of faca.--The Grant Commission shall
not be subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. App.).
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this Act $5,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2006 through 2010, to remain available until
expended.
______
By Mr. ALLEN (for himself, Mr. Talent, Mr. Graham, Mr. McCain,
Mr. Lott, Mr. Warner, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Thune):
S. 432. A bill to establish a digital and wireless network technology
program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, today, with my colleagues, Senators Talent,
Graham, McCain, Lott, Warner, Grassley and Thune, I rise to introduce
the Minority Serving Institution Digital & Wireless Technology
Opportunity Act of 2005.
This legislation will provide vital resources to address the
technology gap that exists at many Minority Serving Institutions, MSIs.
With this legislation together, as a country, we move one step closer
to eliminating what I like to call the ``economic opportunity divide''
that exists between Minority Serving Institutions and non-minority
institutions of higher education.
This legislation will establish a new grant program that provides up
to $250 million a year to help Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges
upgrade their technology and communications infrastructure.
Since before I was elected to the Senate, my goal has always been to
look for ways to improve education and empower all of our young
people--regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion or economic
background--to compete and succeed in life.
With over 200 Hispanic Serving Institutions; over 100 Historically
Black Colleges and Universities and 34 tribal colleges throughout our
country, it is clear that Minority Serving Institutions provide a
valuable service to the educational strength and future growth of our
Nation.
These institutions must have the technology capabilities and
infrastructure available to their students and faculty to successfully
compete and succeed in today's workforce.
Our goal with this legislation is clear--by increasing access to
technology and addressing the technological disparities that exist at
Minority Serving Institutions we will provide our young people with
important tools for success, both in the classroom and in the
workforce.
This nation's economic stability and growth are increasingly
dependent on a growing portion of the workforce possessing
technological skills.
African Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans constitute one-
quarter of the total U.S. workforce. Approximately, one-third of all
students of color in this nation are educated at Minority Serving
Institutions. It is estimated that in 10 years minorities will comprise
nearly 40 percent of all college-age Americans.
Yet, members of these minorities represent only 7 percent of the U.S.
computer and information science workforce; 6 percent of the
engineering workforce; and less than 2 percent of the computer science
faculty.
At the same time, we know that 60 percent of all jobs require
information technology skills and these jobs pay significantly higher
salaries than jobs of a non-technical nature.
I am proud to say Virginia is home to five Historically Black
Colleges & Universities--Norfolk State University, St. Paul's College,
Virginia Union University, Hampton University and Virginia State
University.
Mr. President, we must ensure that the students attending these
minority institutions are competing on a level playing field when it
comes to technology skills and development.
We must tap the talent and potential of these students to ensure that
America's workforce is prepared to lead the world.
The legislation allows eligible institutions the opportunity through
grants, contracts or cooperative agreements to acquire equipment,
instrumentation, networking capability, hardware and software, digital
network technology and wireless technology/infrastructure--such as
wireless fidelity or WiFi--to develop and provide educational services.
Additionally, the grants can be used for equipment upgrades,
technology training and hardware/software acquisition. A Minority
Serving Institution also can use the funds to offer its students
universal access to campus networks, dramatically increase their
connectivity rates, or make necessary infrastructure improvements.
The best jobs in the future will go to those who are the best
prepared. However, I am increasingly concerned that when it comes to
high technology jobs--which pay higher wages--this
[[Page S1653]]
country runs the risk of economically limiting many college students in
our society. It is important for all Americans that we close this
opportunity gap.
Providing equal technological opportunities for all Americans will
have a positive impact on our education system, our economic
competitiveness and future generations of innovators and leaders.
I encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation. This
exact legislation passed the Senate last year 97-0.
Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues for joining me today in
cosponsoring this legislation and I look forward to working with fellow
Senators to push this important measure across the goal-line so that
many more college students are provided access to better technology and
education, and most importantly, even greater opportunities in life.
______
By Mr. ALLEN:
S. 433. A bill to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to
develop and implement standards for the operation of non-scheduled,
commercial air carrier (air charter) and general aviation operations at
Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that
would re-open Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport to all
aviation. Since the tragic attacks of September 11, 2001, general
aviation flights have not been permitted to operate in and out of
Reagan National Airport. My legislation would direct the executive
branch to develop and implement standards for the resumption of general
aviation flights.
The closing of Reagan National to general aviation was
understandable, prudent and tolerable in the weeks and months following
the tragedy of September 11. The safety and security of the capital
region is paramount and will always guide our decisions. But, despite
Congressional action mandating a detailed plan to re-open the airport
to general aviation following a massive strengthening of our airports
and air traffic control system serving the Washington area, the Federal
Government has done little to develop a plan that would allow for the
use of Reagan National for private aircraft.
Closing Reagan National to general aviation has had a substantial
negative effect on jobs and the economy of the capital region. Non-
scheduled air carrier operations at Reagan National once generated an
estimated $50 million a year in direct economic activity from charter
revenue, aircraft handling and refueling services. The lack of charter
and general aviation passengers coming into the city, hotels,
restaurants and other service businesses near Reagan National have
suffered a significant, negative economic impact as well.
Since September 11, 2001, air charter operators have participated in
a rigorous security program that makes their operations just as safe,
if not safer, than those of commercial airlines. Charter operators also
have the capability to check the names of their passengers against
government terrorist watch lists. Given the unique location of the
airport, stakeholders in the general aviation industry are willing to
comply with virtually any rational government policy that would grant
access to Reagan National for general aviation aircraft. Such proposals
include using ``gateway'' airports in which all flights into Reagan
National must first land for additional screening, and added screening
of pilots and passengers. There are also new technological advances
that could be required for private planes using Reagan National.
Notwithstanding the willingness of those in general aviation to comply
with reasonable security procedures that may be implemented, government
agencies have remained stolidly silent on the issue.
That is why I have decided to introduce legislation directing the
Department of Homeland Security to finalize and implement regulations
that would again allow general aviation flights to operate at Reagan
National. The measure allows for reasonable requirements to ensure the
security of operations at Reagan National. The requirements include
screening and certification of flight and ground crews; advance
clearance of passenger manifests; physical screening of passengers and
luggage; the physical inspection of aircraft; special flight procedures
and limiting the airports from which flights can originate.
The Government was able to find conditions under which commercial
aviation could operate out of Reagan National following the September
11 terrorist attacks. I see no reason why similar conditions or
requirements could not be developed to allow for general aviation to
also begin operations again.
Congressionally mandated actions on this issue have yet to result in
a plan or set of circumstances that would fully re-open Reagan
National. Thus, I believe it is necessary to introduce legislation that
would direct the Department of Homeland Security to do so.
I agree that security is the most important factor in this debate;
however I also believe reasonable requirements can be put in place to
ensure the safety of general aviation flights and help the local
businesses that depend on this mode of transportation for their
livelihood.
______
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. Inouye):
S. 436. A bill to require the Secretary of Energy to assess the
economic implications of the dependence of the State of Hawaii on oil
as the principal source of energy for the State; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, in the shadow of crude oil prices that have
reached nearly $50 per barrel, and with the specter of higher gasoline
prices forecast by the Department of Energy's Energy Information
Administration, I rise today to introduce a bill that will help Hawaii
and potentially other insular areas grapple with the difficult choices
ahead with respect to energy independence.
The bill directs the Secretary of Energy to assess the short- and
long-term prospects of oil supply disruptions and price volatility and
their impacts on Hawaii. It also directs the Secretary to assess the
economic relationship between oil-fired generation of electricity from
residual fuel and refined products consumed for transportation needs of
Hawaii. Hawaii uses crude oil to produce electricity, gasoline, and jet
fuel. Changing the mix of these products will have significant economic
implications for Hawaii. We need to have a clear picture of the impacts
of going down these roads to a different energy mix. In addition, the
study would address the technical and economic feasibility of
increasing the contribution of renewable energy resources and the use
of liquified natural gas, LNG, for generating electricity and other
needs. In Hawaii, the costs of gasoline, electricity, and jet fuel are
intertwined in an intricate relationship, because they all come from
the same feedstock, and changes in the use of one could potentially
drive consumer prices up or down. We need to know the implications of
increasing the percentage of renewable sources of energy or switching
to LNG, and whether these choices will leave us enough residual fuel
for our transportation system and jets. Finally, the bill calls for an
analysis of the feasibility of production and use of hydrogen from
renewable resources on an island-by-island basis, an energy source I
have championed for a long time.
Hawaii is heavily dependent on imported oil. About 90 percent of the
State's energy needs for residents and visitors is produced by refining
and burning crude oil. We import 28 percent of our oil from Alaska, but
72 percent comes from foreign sources including Indonesia, China, Papua
New Guinea, and Vietnam. We use 26 percent of the oil for generating
electricity. Being an island State, marine transportation between the
islands is very important. Air transport for residents of Hawaii, as
well as for our tourism industry, is critical. For many high school
athletic and academic teams to compete in intramural activities, it
means getting on planes to go to another island. Many families live on
multiple islands. We use 32 percent of the oil for air transportation,
and 23 percent for ground and marine transportation. My State's
dependence on oil poses potential risks to Hawaii from sudden price
increases or supply disruptions as were experienced several times in
the last five years alone.
[[Page S1654]]
Hawaii uses its energy very efficiently. Our per capita energy use is
well below the national average. In part, this is due to the fact that
Hawaii is blessed with comfortable climate and short driving distances.
Nonetheless, we have been paying some of the highest prices in the
Nation for our energy. We continue to have the highest gasoline prices
in the country. For a long time our electricity rates also have been
the highest in the country. Consistent high energy prices affect the
economic vitality of the State. Before we invest in a different energy
mix and infrastructure, we need to make transparent all the relations
between fuels and the consequences of the directions we choose.
Our State has been proactive in seeking energy solutions. The State
of Hawaii has income tax credits for the installation of solar,
photovoltaic, and wind energy. Hawaii has the largest solar water
heating program in the Nation. Governor Linda Lingle has called for a
20 percent renewable energy standard by 2020. Last year we obtained
about 7 percent of electricity sales from renewable sources, compared
with a national average of about 2 percent. The Hawaiian Electric
Company, HECO, Hawaii's largest utility, announced in January 2003 the
formation of a new subsidiary that will invest in renewable energy
projects for Hawaii.
The Hawaii Energy Policy Forum, a deliberative body of over 40
community leaders and energy stakeholders, met many times over a period
of a year and developed an energy vision for Hawaii through the year
2030. Its report, ``Hawaii at the Crossroads; A Long-Term Energy
Strategy,'' identifies strategic principles for Hawaii's future,
including diversifying the sources of imported energy and beginning the
transition to a long-term hydrogen economy.
Mr. President, energy security includes supply security, price
security, and economic security. Supply security means ensuring that
energy is available despite market disruptions elsewhere. Price
security means that energy consumers are protected against price
fluctuations and chronically high prices. Economic security results
from both of the above. Hawaii is dependent on oil for both
transportation and electricity in ways that are without parallel in
continental States. Hawaii also has an abundance of renewable energy
resources. It is the intent of this bill to assess these challenges and
opportunities, and to help us develop a suitable roadmap for Hawaii's
energy future. This bill will help Hawaii identify the challenges and
decision points along the way to energy security.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill and 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. 436
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. HAWAII ENERGY ASSESSMENT.
(a) Assessment.--The Secretary of Energy shall assess the
economic implications of the dependence of the State of
Hawaii on oil as the principal source of energy for the
State, including--
(1) the short- and long-term prospects for crude oil supply
disruption and price volatility and potential impacts on the
economy of Hawaii;
(2) the economic relationship between oil-fired generation
of electricity from residual fuel and refined petroleum
products consumed for ground, marine, and air transportation;
(3) the technical and economic feasibility of increasing
the contribution of renewable energy resources for generation
of electricity, on an island-by-island basis, including--
(A) siting and facility configuration;
(B) environmental, operational, and safety considerations;
(C) the availability of technology;
(D) effects on the utility system including reliability;
(E) infrastructure and transport requirements;
(F) community support; and
(G) other factors affecting the economic impact of such an
increase and any effect on the economic relationship
described in paragraph (2);
(4) the technical and economic feasibility of using
liquefied natural gas to displace residual fuel oil for
electric generation, including neighbor island opportunities,
and the effect of the displacement on the economic
relationship described in paragraph (2), including--
(A) the availability of supply;
(B) siting and facility configuration for onshore and
offshore liquefied natural gas receiving terminals;
(C) the factors described in subparagraphs (B) through (F)
of paragraph (3); and
(D) other economic factors;
(5) the technical and economic feasibility of using
renewable energy sources (including hydrogen) for ground,
marine, and air transportation energy applications to
displace the use of refined petroleum products, on an island-
by-island basis, and the economic impact of the displacement
on the relationship described in (2); and
(6) an island-by-island approach to--
(A) the development of hydrogen from renewable resources;
and
(B) the application of hydrogen to the energy needs of
Hawaii
(b) Contracting Authority.--The Secretary of Energy may
carry out the assessment under subsection (a) directly or, in
whole or in part, through 1 or more contracts with qualified
public or private entities.
(c) Report.--Not later than 300 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall prepare,
in consultation with agencies of the State of Hawaii and
other stakeholders, as appropriate, and submit to Congress, a
report detailing the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations resulting from the assessment.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
this section.
______
By Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Ms. Stabenow):
S. 437. A bill to expedite review of the grand River Band of Ottawa
Indians of Michigan to secure a timely and just determination of
whether that group is entitled to recognition as a Federal Indian
tribe; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce a
bill to address an inequity to one of Michigan's Native American
tribes. The Grand River Band of Ottawa Indians, commonly referred to as
the Grand River Band, has been in some form indigenous to the State of
Michigan for over 200 years. The Grand River Band consists of the 19
bands of Indians who occupied the territory along the Grand River in
what is now southwest Michigan, including the cities of Grand Rapids
and Muskegon. The members of the Grand River Band are the descendants
and political successors to signatories of the 1821 Treaty of Chicago
and the 1836 Treaty of Washington. They are also one of six tribes who
is an original signatory of the 1855 Treaty of Detroit. However, the
Grand River Band is the only one of those tribes which is not
recognized by the Federal Government.
The bill I am introducing today with my colleague, Senator Stabenow,
will direct the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the Department of Interior
to make a recognition determination in a timely manner. Let me be
clear--this bill does not federally recognize the tribe nor does it
address the issue of gaming. I hope that this legislation will help to
address this inequity to the Grand River Band and provide a timely
remedy so that the tribe can enjoy the full benefits and status of
Federal recognition.
______
BY Mr. ENSIGN (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Hagel, Mrs. Murray,
Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Collins, and Mr.
Hatch):
S. 438. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
repeal the medicare outpatient rehabilitation therapy caps; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce the Medicare
Access to Rehabilitation Services Act to improve the Medicare program
for our senior citizens. The bill, which enjoyed the support of a
majority of the Senate in the 108th Congress, would repeal the
beneficiary cap on rehabilitation therapy care and ensure quality
healthcare for Medicare patients.
The beneficiary cap is really two separate therapy caps: one cap for
occupational therapy and one for both physical therapy and speech-
language pathology care combined. Congress has already shown its
opposition to this arbitrary cap by placing a moratorium on enforcement
of the cap in 1999, 2000, and 2003. The latest moratorium will expire
on January 1, 2006. Without congressional action, the beneficiary cap
on therapy services will be effective again in less than a year. It is
time to repeal the cap once and for all.
[[Page S1655]]
Each year, more than 3.7 million Medicare beneficiaries receive
outpatient physical therapy, occupational therapy, and/or speech-
language pathology services to regain their optimum level of function
and independence. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS,
completed a long-awaited analysis of the therapy cap policy. The
report, prepared by AdvanceMed, estimates that for Calendar Year 2002,
some 638,195 beneficiaries receiving physical therapy, occupational
therapy, and/or speech-language pathology services would have exceeded
the cap threshold. This represents 23.7 percent of the outpatient
therapy expenditures for that year. Failure to address the issue this
year in Congress will have a significant impact on the access
beneficiaries will have to necessary rehabilitation services.
It is clear from recent reports prepared for CMS that patients with
debilitating illnesses and injuries would be severely impacted by
enforcement of the therapy caps. Based on data from 2002, patients
suffering from conditions such as stroke, Parkinson's disease,
congenital heart failure, and Dysphasia were certain to be negatively
impacted by enforcement of existing statutory limits on rehabilitation
coverage.
Action is needed to address the therapy caps this year. Last
Congress, this bill attracted 51 Senators as cosponsors. As a member of
the Senate Budget Committee, I realize the budgetary constraints that
are upon Congress. I understand that we need to prioritize spending. I
believe that a meaningful solution to address the rehabilitation needs
of senior citizens and individuals with disabilities in the Medicare
program should be a priority.
I would like to thank my colleagues, Senator Blanche Lincoln, Senator
Chuck Hagel, Senator Patty Murray, Senator Jeff Bingaman, Senator Jon
Corzine, Senator Tim Johnson, Senator Susan Collins, and Senator Orrin
Hatch for joining me in this effort. I stand ready to work with my
colleagues to enact a solution to the therapy caps that ensures access
to quality restorative services provided by qualified professionals.
______
By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. Jeffords):
S. 439. A bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to provide for
secondary containment to prevent methyl tertiary butyl ether and
petroleum contamination; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to
protect public health and the environment by preventing chemicals from
leaking out of underground storage tanks and thereafter contaminating
drinking water supplies and nearby communities. My colleague in the
House of Representatives, Mr. Dingell, is introducing companion
legislation.
Underground storage tanks can hold extremely toxic chemicals that can
move rapidly through soil, contaminating the ground, aquifers, streams
and other bodies of water. Underground storage tanks are located in
urban and rural areas. When they leak, they present substantial risks
to groundwater quality, human health, environmental quality, and
economic growth.
There are approximately 670,000 underground storage tanks in the
United States, and there have been more than 445,000 confirmed releases
from these tanks as of mid-2003. Over 35 States report that leaking
underground storage tanks are one of the top threats to their drinking
water sources. By and large, MTBE contamination has come from leaking
underground storage tanks. MTBE has contaminated water supplies in 43
States and in 29 States has contaminated drinking water. Estimates
indicate that it will cost at least $29 billion to clean up MTBE
contamination nationwide.
Currently, the leaking underground storage tanks program and other
laws ensure that responsible parties pay to clean up the damage caused
by these leaking spills. Unfortunately, the pace of cleaning up leaking
underground storage tanks is 20 percent below the historic average. Our
Nation faces an estimated 94,000 to 150,000 additional cleanups over
the next 10 years--at a cost of $12 billion to $19 billion.
The best, most commonsense solution to stop leaking underground
storage tanks from threatening public health is to prevent them from
leaking in the first place with the use of secondary containment, such
as double walls. There is already widespread support for this
throughout the country. Twenty-one States already require secondary
containment, either for all new or replaced tanks--such as in
California--or for all new or replaced tanks in sensitive areas. In
addition, two States are awaiting final passage or approval of such
requirements, and one State requires tertiary, such as triple walls,
containment. According to figures from the Petroleum Equipment
Institute, 57 percent of all tanks installed from 2000 through 2003
were double walled.
But this is not fast enough in the face of the threats to our
drinking and groundwater. Approximately 50 percent of the population
relies on groundwater for their drinking water, including almost 100
percent in rural areas. The time to prevent contamination is now.
We must ensure the environmental health and safety of our water. I
encourage my colleagues to support this bill.
______
By Mr. BUNNING (for himself and Ms. Mikulski):
S. 440. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
include podiatrists as physicians for purposes of covering physicians
services under the medicaid program; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce an important
bill that will ensure that Medicaid beneficiaries in all states have
access to the services of top-quality podiatric physicians. I am
pleased that Senator Mikulski from Maryland is joining me in
introducing this bill today.
Having healthy feet and ankles are critical to keeping individuals
mobile, productive and in good long-term health. This is particularly
true for individuals with diabetes.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC,
over 18 million Americans have diabetes, and it is the sixth leading
cause of death in this country. Each year, over 200,000 Americans die
from this disease.
If not managed properly, diabetes can cause several severe health
problems, including eye disease or blindness, kidney disease and heart
disease. Too often, diabetes can lead to foot complications, including
foot ulcers and even amputations. In fact, the CDC estimates that
82,000 people undergo an amputation of a leg, foot or toe each year
because of complications with diabetes.
Proper care of the feet could prevent many of these amputations. The
CDC says that regular exams and patient education could prevent up to
85 percent these amputations.
The bill we are introducing today recognizes the important role
podiatrists can play identifying and correcting foot problems among
diabetics. The bill amends Medicaid's definition of ``physicians'' to
include podiatric physicians. This will ensure that Medicaid
beneficiaries have access to foot care from those most qualified to
provide it.
Under Medicaid, podiatry is considered an optional benefit. However,
just because it is optional, doesn't mean that podiatric services are
not needed, or that beneficiaries will not seek out other providers to
perform these services. Instead, Medicaid beneficiaries will have to
receive foot care from other providers who may not be as well trained
as a podiatrist in treating lower extremities.
Also, it is important to note that podiatrists are considered
physicians under the Medicare program, which allows seniors and
disabled individuals to receive appropriate care.
I urge my colleagues to give careful consideration to this important
bill. It will help many Medicaid beneficiaries across the country have
access to podiatrists that they need.
Finally, I thank the Senator from Maryland for helping me introduce
this legislation today. I hope that by working together we can see this
important change made.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Bunning to
introduce this important bill to make sure that Medicaid patients have
access to care provided by podiatrists.
This bill ensures that Medicaid patients across the country can get
services provided by podiatrists. This is a simple, common sense bill.
This legislation includes podiatric physicians in
[[Page S1656]]
Medicaid's definition of physician. This means that the services of
podiatrists will be covered by Medicaid, just like they are in
Medicare. Podiatrists are considered physicians under Medicare. They
should be under Medicaid. Medicaid covers necessary foot and ankle care
services. Medicaid should allow podiatrists who are trained
specifically in foot and ankle care to provide these services and be
reimbursed for them.
The services of podiatrists are considered optional under Medicaid.
Currently, most state Medicaid programs, including Maryland, recognize
and reimburse podiatrists for providing foot and ankle care to their
beneficiaries. However, during times of tight budgets, states may
choose to cut back on these optional services. Recently, Connecticut,
and Texas discontinued podiatric services. Even though podiatrist
services are considered optional, Medicaid patients need foot and ankle
care. If podiatrists do not provide the care, patients will see
providers who may not be as well trained in the care of the lower
extremities as podiatrists. I want the over 560,000 Medicaid patients
in Maryland to have access to the services provided by over 400
podiatrists in Maryland.
Podiatrists receive special training on the foot, ankle, and lower
leg. They play an important role in the recognition of systemic
diseases like diabetes, and in the recognition and treatment of
peripheral neuropathy, a frequent cause of diabetic foot wounds that
can often lead to preventable lower extremity amputations. Over 18
million people in this country have diabetes, but an estimated more
than 5 million of these people are not aware that they have the
disease.
The President's budget challenges Congress to make major cuts to
Medicaid--up to $60 billion. Covering podiatrists may be, in fact, a
cost cutting measure. Ensuring Medicaid patient access to podiatrists
will save Medicaid funds in the long term. According to the American
Podiatric Medical Association, 75 percent of Americans will experience
some type of foot health problem during their lives. Foot disease is
the most common complication of diabetes leading to hospitalization.
About 82,000 people have diabetes-related leg, foot, or toe amputations
each year. Foot care programs with regular examinations and patient
education could prevent up to 85 percent of these amputations.
Podiatrists are important providers of this care.
This bill will make sure that Medicaid patients across the country
have access to care provided by podiatrists. It has the support of the
American Podiatric Medical Association. I urge my colleagues to
cosponsor this important legislation.
______
By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Kyl, Mr.
Allen, Mr. Bunning, Mrs. Dole, and Mr. Chambliss):
S. 441. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make
permanent the classification of a motorsports entertainment complex; to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, along with Senator
Nelson of Florida, Senator Kyl of Arizona, Senator Allen of Virginia,
Senator Bunning of Kentucky, Senator Chambliss of Georgia, and Senator
Dole of North Carolina, legislation that would permanently extend the
current treatment of investments made to motorsports entertainment
complexes, ensuring that this important economic engine for our economy
continues to roar. The Motorsports Fairness and Permanency Act of 2005
will help ensure that job-creating investments in motorsports
facilities continue to be made under the same economic assumptions and
tax treatment used for the last several decades--decades that have
witnessed the most explosive growth in motorsports' long history.
Motorsports is the fastest growing sport in the United States,
drawing fans to tracks and speedways around the country. In fact, there
are over 900 motorsports facilities throughout the U.S., with tracks in
every State. These facilities contribute to the economy by attracting
motorsports enthusiasts and tourists, hiring permanent and temporary
employees, and making capital investments. Facilities of every type--
from local tracks that run weekly racing series to ``superspeedways''
that host nationally-televised events--must continually upgrade and
reinvest in order to remain competitive.
Motorsports play a significant role in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, where racing is an integral part of Pennsylvania's
economy with 60 racing facilities in every corner of the State. In
fact, Pennsylvania is tied with California for the second-most
motorsports facilities of any State.
Our facilities and tracks span across the Commonwealth and include
the nationally known Pocono Raceway in Long Pond, Lake Erie Speedway,
and Maple Grove Raceway, located just outside of Reading. These and
other raceways in Pennsylvania hold NASCAR, National Hot Rod
Association, Import Drag Racing Circuit, and other racing events,
drawing hundreds of thousands of fans each year contributing vital
economic support to their local communities.
It is clear that motorsports racing plays an important role in
Pennsylvania, just as it does across this country. When making these
capital investments, owners of motorsports facilities have long relied
on and in good faith applied a 7-year depreciation life for these
assets, but a few years ago the IRS began to raise some questions about
the use of the 7-year classification. Last year, in H.R. 4520, the
American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Congress clarified that the
appropriate depreciation period for motorsports assets was indeed 7
years. Due to revenue constraints in that particular bill, the
provision on motorsports asset classification will lapse in 2008,
meaning that Congress needs to act to permanently extend the provision.
These capital expenditures, such as major improvements to existing
tracks or building new tracks, require several years of planning
followed by construction. Without a permanent provision that provides
clarity and certainty, significant capital investments in motorsports
facilities--and the jobs and economic gains those investments bring--
could be negatively impacted.
I am hopeful that my colleagues in the Senate will join me in support
of permanently extending the current treatment of investments in
motorsports entertainment facilities.
______
By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Kohl, and Mr. Leahy):
S. 443. A bill to improve the investigation of criminal antitrust
offenses; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleagues
Senators Kohl and Leahy, to introduce the Antitrust Investigative
Improvements Act of 2005. We do so to strengthen the Department of
Justice's ability to investigate criminal antitrust conspiracies. This
bill gives the Department of Justice authority to seek a wiretap order
from a Federal judge, for a limited time period, to monitor
communications between antitrust conspirators.
Investigating and prosecuting criminal antitrust conspiracies, such
as cartels and bid-rigging, is the core mission of the Department of
Justice's Antitrust Division. Because of the harm this behavior can do
to the economy and to innocent consumers, Assistant Attorney General
for the Antitrust Division, Hewitt Pate, has said that prosecuting
``cartels remain[s] our top enforcement priority at the Antitrust
Division.'' As a result, in the United States, we punish such illegal
behavior harshly. Corporations can be fined up to $100 million and
individuals can be fined up to $1 million and be incarcerated for 10
years. But, despite the high priority the Antitrust Division places on
these cases and the tough penalties under the law, up to now, we have
not given the Department of Justice all the tools it needs to
investigate and prosecute criminal antitrust conspiracies.
In criminal antitrust investigations, to prosecute a case, it is
critical that prosecutors gain access to evidence on the inner workings
of the conspiracy. To meet their heavy burden of proof, prosecutors
must marshal strong evidence showing, for example, the terms of the
illegal agreement, the participants in the illegal agreement, and
precisely when the illegal agreement was reached. This type of evidence
is extremely difficult to gain without penetrating the inner workings
of the conspiracy.
The Department has principally two techniques for investigating
criminal antitrust enterprises. First, it may enlist the cooperation of
a witness. The
[[Page S1657]]
cooperating witness may be, for example, a customer being harmed by the
conspiracy or a co-conspirator to the antitrust crime. Under this
approach, a cooperating witness may testify about the details of the
conspiracy or may record conversations with the conspirators, either
through videotape or audiotape. One important restriction is that the
cooperating witness must be present at the conversation when recording.
But, if the Department cannot secure a cooperating witness, which is
often the case, this technique is not available.
Second, the Antitrust Division also has a corporate leniency program,
which has been very successful in investigating and prosecuting
criminal antitrust conspiracies. In exchange for fully cooperating with
an antitrust investigation, an otherwise guilty corporation may receive
lenient treatment. But, this method, too, depends on the cooperation of
one who was on the inside of the criminal conspiracy.
Our bill adds a third technique by amending Title III of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (18 U.S.C. Section 2510 et seq.) to
make a criminal violation of the Sherman Act a ``predicate offense''
for an order authorizing the interception of wire or oral
communications, hereinafter ``wiretap order''. Amending this law to
make criminal antitrust offenses a predicate offense would give the
Department of Justice a much needed tool to investigate the inner
workings of criminal antitrust conspiracies. Unlike using a cooperating
witness or the corporate leniency program, a wiretap order does not
require the cooperation of someone who has inside knowledge of the
conspiracy or who is actually participating in the conspiracy. Upon a
showing of probable cause to a Federal judge, the Department of Justice
could obtain a wiretap order, for a limited time period, to monitor
communications between conspirators.
There are over 150 predicate offenses from title 18 and dozens of
other predicate offenses from other parts of the U.S. Criminal Code.
Offenses, such as wire fraud, mail fraud, and bank fraud are predicate
offenses, but up to now, criminal antitrust offenses have not been on
the list. I think this is a mistake. Criminal antitrust offenses are
basically white-collar, fraud offenses, and often do much more harm to
innocent consumers than other types of fraud offenses. It is time for
antitrust to be added as a predicate offense, given the gravity of the
crime.
This idea is not new. Past Assistant Attorney Generals of the
Antitrust Division have supported the idea for such legislation. And,
in 1999, our neighbor to the north, Canada, passed similar legislation.
It is an idea whose time has come.
I urge my colleagues to support this important reform to strengthen
the enforcement of our antitrust laws. I ask unanimous consent to print
the bill in the Record.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, America's antitrust laws play a vital role
in protecting consumers and ensuring a competitive marketplace for
business. The vigorous enforcement of these laws also helps promote and
maintain the efficiency of our markets by promoting competition,
innovation, and technological development. Today, I am pleased to join
Senator Kohl and Senator DeWine in introducing the Antitrust Criminal
Investigative Improvements Act of 2005, legislation that will provide
the Department of Justice with long overdue authority in investigating
and prosecuting criminal antitrust violations.
Congress acted in 1890 with passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act to
prohibit abusive monopolization and anticompetitive practices. Since
that time, the Department of Justice's enforcement efforts have
benefited consumers in terms of lower prices, greater variety, and
higher quality of products and services. Despite the value and impact
of criminal antitrust cases, however, criminal antitrust investigations
do not currently qualify for judicially approved wiretaps. While the
Justice Department may engage in court-authorized searches of business
records, it may only monitor phone calls of informants or the
conversations of consenting parties.
The Antitrust Criminal Investigative Improvements Act of 2005 will
add criminal price fixing and bid rigging to the many crimes that are
already ``predicate offenses'' for wiretap purposes. More than 150
``predicate offenses'' are currently included in Title III of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, including crimes of lesser
impact and significance than criminal antitrust violations. In light of
the seriousness of economic harms caused by violations of the Sherman
Antitrust Act, the inability of the Justice Department to obtain
wiretaps when investigating criminal antitrust violations makes little
sense. Moreover, the evidence that can be acquired through wiretaps is
precisely the type of evidence that is essential for the successful
prosecution and prevention of serious antitrust violations. This bill
equips the Department of Justice investigators and prosecutors to
enforce zealously the criminal antitrust laws of the United States.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 444. A bill to establish a demonstration project to train
unemployed workers for employment as health care professionals, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the third in a
series of bills intended to support American companies and American
workers. Earlier this week, I introduced S. Con. Res. 12, which would
set some minimum standards for future trade agreements into which our
country enters, and S. 395, which would strengthen the Buy American
Act. Today I am introducing legislation that would help workers who
have lost their manufacturing or service sector jobs to be retrained
for jobs in high-demand health care fields.
According to the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development,
Wisconsin has lost nearly 80,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000.
Nationally, the country has lost more than 2.5 million manufacturing
jobs since January 2001. In addition to the loss of manufacturing jobs,
I am deeply troubled by the Bush administration's contention that the
outsourcing of American service sector and other jobs is good for the
economy. I am concerned about the message that this policy sends to
Wisconsinites and all Americans who are currently employed in these
sectors.
There is something of a silver lining to the looming cloud of
manufacturing and other jobs loss: the country's workforce development
system.
In spite of stretched resources and long waiting lists for services,
our workforce development boards are making a tremendous effort to
retrain laid-off workers and other job seekers for new jobs. And this
effort is clearly evident in Wisconsin, where my State's 11 workforce
development boards are leading the way in finding innovative solutions
to retraining workers for new careers on shoestring budgets.
I strongly support the work of these agencies and have urged the
administration and Senate appropriators to provide adequate funding for
the job training programs authorized by the Workforce Investment Act. I
regret that the administration's budget request for fiscal year 2006
does not provide adequate funding for WIA, and I will continue to work
to ensure that the workforce development boards in my State and across
our country receive the resources they need to help job seekers get the
training they need to be successful.
I am committed to finding resources to retrain those who have been
laid off from the manufacturing and service sectors and who wish to
find new jobs in high-demand fields such as health care.
As most of my colleagues know all too well, we are facing a
significant shortage of health care workers. Congress has made some
progress in addressing the nursing shortage, but we need to expand our
efforts. Shortages of health professionals pose a real threat to the
health of our communities by impacting access to timely, high-quality
health care. Studies have shown that shortages of nurses in our
hospitals and health facilities increase medical errors, which directly
affects patient health.
As our population ages, and the baby boomers need more health care,
our need for all types of health professionals is only going to
increase. This is particularly true for the field of long-term care.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we are going
[[Page S1658]]
to need an additional 1.2 million nursing aides, home health aides, and
other health professionals in long-term care before the year 2010.
As our demand for health care workers grows, so does the number of
jobs available within this sector. Currently, health services is the
largest industry in the country, providing 12.9 million jobs in 2002.
It is estimated that 16 percent of all new jobs created between 2002
and 2012 will be in health services. This accounts for 3.5 million new
jobs--more than any other industry.
According to the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, the
surging job growth within health care will translate into a real need
for workers) and real opportunity. In Wisconsin alone, there will be an
additional 67,430 health care positions by 2012. This represents a 30
percent increase in jobs in health care, over twice the rate of growth
for Wisconsin jobs overall.
Mr. President, workforce development agencies in my home State of
Wisconsin are already working to support displaced workers in their
communities by training them for health care jobs, since there is a
real need for workers in these fields. These agencies are helping
communities get and maintain access to high-quality health care by
ensuring that there are enough health care workers to care for their
communities.
As the executive director of one of the workforce development boards
in my State put it, ``[t]here are simply not many good quality jobs to
replace manufacturing jobs lost to rural communities. The medical
professions, by offering a `living wage' and good benefits, provide an
excellent alternative to manufacturing for sustaining a higher, family
oriented standard of living.''
I believe we need to support our communities in these efforts by
providing them with the resources they need to establish, sustain, or
expand these important programs. For that reason, today I am
introducing the Community-Based Health Care Retraining Act. This bill
would amend the Workforce Investment Act to authorize a demonstration
project to provide grants to community-based coalitions, led by local
workforce development boards, to create programs to retrain unemployed
workers who wish to obtain new jobs in the health care professions. My
bill would authorize a total of $25 million for grants between $100,000
and $500,000, and, in the interest of fiscal responsibility, it ensures
that the cost of these grants would be offset.
This bill will help provide communities with the resources they need
to run retraining programs for the health professions. The funds could
be used for a variety of purposes--from increasing the capacity of our
schools and training facilities, to providing financial and social
support for workers who are in retraining programs. This bill allows
for flexibility in the use of grant funds because I believe that
communities know best about the resources they need to run an efficient
program.
This bill represents a nexus in my efforts to support workers whose
jobs have been shipped overseas and to ensure that all Americans have
access to the high-quality health care that they deserve. By providing
targeted assistance to train laid-off workers who wish to obtain new
jobs in the health care sector, we can both help unemployed Americans
and improve the availability and quality of health care that is
available in our communities.
I am pleased that this bill is supported by a variety of
organizations that are committed to providing high-quality job training
and health care services, inc1uding the National Association of
Workforce Boards, the Wisconsin Association of Job Training Executives,
the Wisconsin Hospital Association, the Northwest Wisconsin
Concentrated Employment Program, the Northwest Wisconsin Workforce
Investment Board, the Southwestern Wisconsin Workforce Development
Board, the West Central Wisconsin Workforce Development Board, and the
Workforce Development Board of South Central Wisconsin.
Mr. President, in order to ensure that our workers are able to
compete in the new economy, we must ensure that they have the tools
they need to be trained or retrained for high-demand jobs such as those
in the health care field. My bill is a small step toward providing the
resources necessary to achieve this goal. I will continue to work to
strengthen the American manufacturing sector and to support those
workers who have been displaced due to bad trade agreements and other
policies that have led to the loss of American jobs.
______
By Ms. STABENOW (for herself, Mr. Carper, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
Schumer, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Johnson):
S. 445. A resolution to amend part D of title XVIII of the Social
Security Act, as added by the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement,
and Modernization Act of 2003, to provide for negotiation of fair
prices for Medicare prescription drugs; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Medicare
Prescription Drug Price Reduction Act of 2005, and am pleased to be
joined by my colleagues, Senators Carper, Kennedy, Schumer, Bingaman,
and Johnson.
This legislation is very simple and very straightforward: it would
allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate directly
with pharmaceutical manufacturers on behalf of our seniors and the
disabled to get the lowest possible prices.
Last week we learned that the Medicare prescription drug benefit will
cost more than 1 trillion dollars--$1.2 trillion to be exact--just for
the years 2006 through 2015.
Some of our colleagues are responding to the news of the $1.2
trillion price tag with plans to reduce the benefit. But the benefit as
currently structured is far from comprehensive. Seniors are responsible
for $420 in premiums, and a $250 deductible before they get one penny's
worth of help towards the cost of their prescription drugs. Once the
benefit kicks in, they will face a hefty copayment, and many will fall
into the infamous ``hole'' in the benefit and--at the same time they
continue to pay premiums--not get any assistance at all.
Even with a $1.2 trillion pricetag, our seniors will have to shoulder
two-thirds of the cost of their prescription drugs. Neither the seniors
and disabled, nor the taxpayers, should be paying so much for so
little.
Last week's news of the cost of the benefit makes it clear that we
must give Medicare the ability to use the market power of 41 million
people to secure the lowest prices possible for seniors, the disabled,
and the American taxpayer.
Our response to the new cost estimate shouldn't be to reduce the
already meager benefit but to use our dollars more efficiently. The
change that my colleagues and I are seeking would allow us to improve
the drug benefit--by lowering the cost of the drugs, we could fill in
the gaps in coverage and provide a more meaningful benefit.
Former HHS Secretary Thompson said at his December 3rd resignation
press conference that he would have liked to have had the opportunity
to negotiate lower drug prices.
I expect Secretary Thompson knows what every smart buyer knows: the
more you are buying of anything, the better deal you get. We all know
that Sam's Club gets the best prices on breakfast cereal, batteries,
and paper towels because they represent a huge market.
And now that Secretary Leavitt is tasked with running the program, we
should give him as many tools as possible to run this program at the
lowest possible cost.
Today the only entity in this country that cannot bargain for lower
group prices is Medicare. The States, Fortune 500 companies, large
pharmacy chains, and the Veterans' Administration use their bargaining
clout to obtain lower drug prices for the patients they represent.
Medicare should have that same ability. It doesn't make any sense to
prohibit the Secretary from using the clout of our 41 million seniors
to help get them the best possible prices on prescription drugs.
I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this commonsense approach
to providing real savings for our seniors and the disabled, and
ensuring the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
[[Page S1659]]
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 445
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
Price Reduction Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. NEGOTIATING FAIR PRICES FOR MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION
DRUGS.
Section 1860D-11 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395w-111) is amended by striking subsection (i) (relating to
noninterference) and by inserting the following:
``(i) Authority To Negotiate Prices With Manufacturers.--In
order to ensure that each part D eligible individual who is
enrolled under a prescription drug plan or an MA-PD plan pays
the lowest possible price for covered part D drugs, the
Secretary shall have authority similar to that of other
Federal entities that purchase prescription drugs in bulk to
negotiate contracts with manufacturers of covered part D
drugs, consistent with the requirements of this part and in
furtherance of the goals of providing quality care and
containing costs under this part.''.
______
By Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 446. A bill to direct the Director of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency to designate New Jersey Task Force 1 as part of the
National Urban Search and Rescue Response System; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that
would designate New Jersey's elite urban search and rescue team, New
Jersey Task Force One, as part of the National Urban Search and Rescue
Response System.
I am proud to be joined by my colleague from New Jersey, Senator
Frank Lautenberg, in introducing this legislation today. And I am also
pleased that my colleague, Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen, has
introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives.
New Jersey Task Force One is a team comprised of career and volunteer
fire, police, and EMS personnel from all 21 counties in New Jersey. The
primary mission of the NJTFO is to provide advanced technical search
and rescue capabilities to victims who are trapped or entombed in
collapsed buildings. The NJTFO is a world-class operation whose
response system mirrors the Federal Emergency Management Agencies
guidelines on urban search and rescue and the appropriate National Fire
Protection Association Standards.
The training, commitment, and expertise of the NJTFO has saved lives.
In fact, New Jersey Task Force One was one of the first units to arrive
on the scene at the World Trade Center on September 11, and they
bravely conducted search, rescue, medical, and planning and logistics
operations on site.
In this era of terrorism and heightened homeland security we should
be doing all we can to show our commitment to our first responders.
This designation would do just that for New Jersey Task Force One. More
importantly, by making NJTFO a part of the National Urban Search and
Rescue Team they would be eligible for Federal funding that is vital to
helping them fulfill their mission. The honor of joining the other 28
members of the National Urban Search and Rescue Response System is a
recognition that the NJTFO is more than deserving of.
I urge the Senate to enact this legislation and ask for a copy of
this bill to be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 446
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ADDITION OF TASK FORCE TO NATIONAL URBAN SEARCH
AND RESCUE RESPONSE SYSTEM.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
demonstrated the importance of enhancing national domestic
terrorism preparedness;
(2) 26 of the 28 urban search and rescue task forces
included in the National Urban Search and Rescue Response
System of the Federal Emergency Management Agency were called
into action in the wake of the events of September 11;
(3) highly qualified, urban search and rescue teams not
included in the National Urban Search and Rescue Response
System were the first teams in New York City on September 11;
(4) the continuing threat of a possible domestic terrorist
attack remains an important mission for which the United
States must prepare to respond; and
(5) part of that response should be to increase the number
of urban search and rescue task forces included in the
National Urban Search and Rescue Response System.
(b) Addition of New Jersey Task Force 1.--The Director of
the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall designate New
Jersey Task Force 1 as part of the National Urban Search and
Rescue Response System.
______
By Mr. DOMENICI:
S. 447. A bill to authorize the conveyance of certain Federal land in
the State of New Mexico; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce an
uncontroversial piece of legislation that I hope will receive prompt
committee action and will make its way quickly to the President's desk
for his signature.
I would first like to familiarize the Senate with the important
mission and related work of the Chihuahuan Desert Nature Park in Las
Cruces, NM. The Chihuahuan Desert is the largest desert in North
America and contains a great diversity of unique plant and animal
species. The ecosystem makes up an indispensable part of Southwest's
treasured ecological diversity. As such, it is important that we teach
our young ones an appreciation for New Mexico's biological diversity
and impart upon them the value of this ecological treasure.
The Chihuahuan Desert Nature Park is a nonprofit institution that has
spent the past 6 years providing hands-on science education to K-12th
graders. To achieve this mission, the Nature Park provides classroom
presentation, field trips, schoolyard ecology projects, and teacher
work shops. The Nature Park serves more than 11,000 students and 600
teachers annually. This instruction will enable our future leaders to
make informed decisions about how best to manage these valuable
resources. I commend those at the Nature Park for taking the initiative
to create and administer a wonderfully successful program that has been
so beneficial to the surrounding community.
The Chihuahuan Desert Nature Park was granted a 1,000 acre easement
in 1998 at the southern boundary of USDA-Agriculture Research Service,
USDA-ARS, property just north of Las Cruces, NM. This easement will
expire soon. It is important that we provide them a permanent location
so that they are able to continue their valuable mission.
The bill I introduce today would transfer an insignificant amount of
land: 1,000 of 193,000 USDA acres to the Desert Nature Park so that
they may continue their important work. The USDA-ARS has approved the
land transfer, noting the critically important mission of the Desert
Park. I have no doubt that Senators on both sides of the aisle will
recognize the importance of this land transfer.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 447
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 ``Jornada Experimental Range
Transfer Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the Chihuahuan Desert
Nature Park Board.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
SEC. 3. CONVEYANCE OF LAND TO CHIHUAHUAN DESERT NATURE PARK
BOARD.
(a) Conveyance.--The Secretary may convey to the Board, by
quitclaim deed, for no consideration, all right, title, and
interest of the United States in and to the land described in
subsection (b).
(b) Description of Land.--The parcel of land referred to in
subsection (a) consists of not more than 1000 acres of land
selected by the Secretary--
(1) that is located in the Jornada Experimental Range in
the State of New Mexico; and
(2) that is subject to an easement granted by the
Agricultural Research Service to the Board.
(c) Conditions.--The conveyance of land under subsection
(a) shall be subject to--
(1) the condition that the Board pay--
[[Page S1660]]
(A) the cost of any surveys of the land; and
(B) any other costs relating to the conveyance;
(2) any rights-of-way to the land reserved by the
Secretary;
(3) a covenant or restriction in the deed to the land
described in subsection (b) requiring that--
(A) the land may be used only for educational purposes;
(B) if the land is no longer used for the purposes
described in subparagraph (A), the land shall, at the
discretion of the Secretary, revert to the United States; and
(C) if the land is determined by the Secretary to be
environmentally contaminated under subsection (d)(2)(A), the
Board shall remediate the contamination; and
(4) any other terms and conditions that the Secretary
determines to be appropriate.
(d) Reversion.--If the land conveyed under subsection (a)
is no longer used for the purposes described in subsection
(c)(3)(A)--
(1) the land shall, at the discretion of the Secretary,
revert to the United States; and
(2) if the Secretary chooses to have the land revert to the
United States, the Secretary shall--
(A) determine whether the land is environmentally
contaminated, including contamination from hazardous wastes,
hazardous substances, pollutants, contaminants, petroleum, or
petroleum by-products; and
(B) if the Secretary determines that the land is
environmentally contaminated, the Board or any other person
responsible for the contamination shall remediate the
contamination.
______
By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself, Mr. Stevens, Ms. Cantwell, and
Mrs. Murray):
S. 448. A bill to authorize the President to posthumously award a
gold medal on behalf of Congress to Elizabeth Wanamaker Peratrovich and
Roy Peratrovich in recognition of their outstanding and enduring
contributions to the civil rights and dignity of the Native peoples of
Alaska and the Nation; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this week the people of my State of
Alaska pause to recognize two giant figures in the fight for equal
rights and justice under the law, the late Elizabeth and Roy
Peratrovich. On February 16, 2005, the State of Alaska once again
observed Elizabeth Peratrovich Day. Activities to celebrate the legacy
of Elizabeth and Roy Peratrovich are taking place in schools and
cultural centers throughout Alaska this week. This coming Saturday, the
Alaska Native Heritage Center in Anchorage will conduct a day-long
celebration of the Peratrovich legacy.
Roy and Elizabeth are to the Native peoples of Alaska what Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr., and Rosa Parks are to African Americans. Everybody
knows about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks, but hardly
anyone outside the State of Alaska knows about Roy and Elizabeth
Peratrovich. Today, I rise to once again share the Peratrovich legacy
with the Senate.
Elizabeth was born in 1911, about 17 years before Dr. King. She was
born in Petersburg, AK. After college she married Roy Peratrovich, a
Tlingit from Klawock, AK, and the couple had three children. Roy and
Elizabeth moved to Juneau. They were excited about buying a new home.
But they could not buy the house that they wanted because they were
Native. They could not enter the stores or restaurants they wanted.
Outside some of these stores and restaurants there were signs that read
``No Natives Allowed.'' History has also recorded a sign that read ``No
Dogs or Indians Allowed.''
On December 30, 1941, following the invasion of Pearl Harbor,
Elizabeth and Roy wrote to Alaska's Territorial Governor:
In the present emergency our Native boys are being called
upon to defend our beloved country. There are no distinctions
being made there. Yet when we patronized good business
establishments we are told in most cases that Natives are not
allowed.
The proprietor of one business, an inn, does not seem to
realize that our Native boys are just as willing to lay down
their lives to protect the freedom he enjoys. Instead he
shows his appreciation by having a `No Natives Allowed' sign
on his door.
In that letter Elizabeth and Roy noted:
We were shocked when the Jews were discriminated against in
Germany. Stories were told of public places having signs,
``No Jews Allowed.'' All freedom loving people were horrified
at what was being practiced in Germany, yet it is being
practiced in our own country.
In 1943, the Alaska Legislature, at the behest of Roy and Elizabeth
considered an antidiscrimination law. It was defeated. But Roy and
Elizabeth were not defeated. Two years later, in 1945, the
antidiscrimination measure was back before the Alaska Terrritorial
Legislature. It passed the lower house, but met with stiff opposition
in the Territorial Senate.
One by one Senators took to the floor to debate the closely contested
legislation. One Senator argued that ``the races should be kept further
apart.'' This Senator went on to rhetorically question, ``Who are these
people, barely out of savagery, who want to associate with us whites
with 5,000 years of recorded civilization behind us?''
Elizabeth Peratrovich was observing the debate from the gallery. As a
citizen, she asked to be heard and in accordance with the custom of the
day was recognized to express her views.
In a quiet, dignified and steady voice this ``fighter with velvet
gloves'' responded, ``I would not have expected that I, who am barely
out of savagery, would have to remind gentlemen with 5,000 years of
recorded history behind them of our Bill of Rights.''
She was asked by a Senator if she thought the proposed bill would
eliminate discrimination, Elizabeth Peratrovich queried in rebuttal,
``Do your laws against larceny and even murder prevent these crimes? No
law will eliminate crimes but at least you as legislators can assert to
the world that you recognize the evil of the present situation and
speak your intent to help us overcome discrimination.''
When she finished, there was a wild burst of applause from the
gallery and the Senate floor alike. The territorial Senate passed the
bill by a vote of 11 to 5. On February 16, 1945, Alaska had an
antidiscrimination law that provided that all citizens of the territory
of Alaska are entitled to full and equal enjoyment of public
accommodations. Following passage of the anti-discrimination law, Roy
and Elizabeth could be seen dancing at the Baranof Hotel, one of
Juneau's finest. They danced among people they didn't know. They danced
in a place where the day before they were not welcome.
There is an important lesson to be learned from the battles of
Elizabeth and Roy Peratrovich. Even in defeat, they knew that change
would come from their participation in our political system. They were
not discouraged by their defeat in 1943. They came back fighting and
enjoyed the fruits of their victory 2 years later.
Twenty-four years before Alaska's statehood and 18 years before Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of his dream for racial equity under the
law, Alaska had a law protecting civil rights. Elizabeth would not live
to see the United States adopt the same law she brought to Alaska in
1945. She passed away in 1958 at the age of 47, 6 years before civil
rights legislation would pass nationally.
In addition to the annual observance of Elizabeth Peratrovich Day,
the State of Alaska has acknowledged Elizabeth Peratrovich's
contribution to history by designating one of the public galleries in
the Alaska House of Representatives as the Elizabeth Peratrovich
Gallery.
But what about Roy? Why has his role not been recognized? Roy
Peratrovich passed away in 1989 at age 81. He died 9 days before the
first Elizabeth Peratrovich Day was observed in the State of Alaska.
Perhaps it was because Roy was still alive at the time this honor was
bestowed, it is Elizabeth who has gotten all the credit for passage of
the antidiscrimination
Members of the Peratrovich family tell me that this is not entirely
unjustified because without Elizabeth's stirring speech the
antidiscrimination law would not have passed. But they also point out,
as does the historical record, that Elizabeth and Roy were a focused
and effective team. History should recognize that the
antidiscrimination law was enacted due to the joint efforts of Roy and
Elizabeth Peratrovich. I rise today to do my part toward that end.
Joined by my colleagues, the distinguished senior Senator from
Alaska, Mr. Stevens, and my distinguished colleague from the State of
Washington, Ms. Cantwell, I am pleased to once again offer legislation
to recognize the contributions of Roy and Elizabeth Peratrovich with a
Congressional Gold Medal. I invite all of my colleagues to join with me
in cosponsoring this important legislation. Congressional Gold
[[Page S1661]]
Medals have been awarded to a number of African Americans who have made
contributions to the cause of civil rights, among them, Rosa Parks, Roy
Wilkins, Dorothy Height, the nine brave individuals who desegregated
the schools of Little Rock, Arkansas, and others involved in the effort
to desegregate public education.
With the opening of the very popular National Museum of the American
Indian last year our Nation is focusing on the many contributions of
our first people and the challenges they have faced throughout our
Nation's history. It is time that we also acknowledge the work of
American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians in the struggle
for civil rights and social justice. Honoring Elizabeth and Roy
Peratrovich's substantial contribution with a Congressional Gold Medal
is a fine start.
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. 448
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Elizabeth Wanamaker, a Tlingit Indian, was born on July
4, 1911, in Petersburg, Alaska.
(2) Elizabeth married Roy Peratrovich, a Tlingit Indian
from Klawock, Alaska, on December 15, 1931.
(3) In 1941, the couple moved to Juneau, Alaska.
(4) Roy and Elizabeth Peratrovich discovered that they
could not purchase a home in the section of Juneau in which
they desired to live due to discrimination against Alaska
Natives.
(5) In the early 1940s, there were reports that some
businesses in Southeast Alaska posted signs reading ``No
Natives Allowed''.
(6) Roy, as Grand President of the Alaska Native
Brotherhood, and Elizabeth, as Grand President of the Alaska
Native Sisterhood, petitioned the Territorial Governor and
the Territorial Legislature to enact a law prohibiting
discrimination against Alaska Natives in public
accommodations.
(7) Rebuffed by the Territorial Legislature in 1943, they
again sought passage of an anti-discrimination law in 1945.
(8) On February 8, 1945, as the Alaska Territorial Senate
debated the anti-discrimination law, Elizabeth, who was
sitting in the visitor's gallery of the Senate, was
recognized to present her views on the measure.
(9) The eloquent and dignified testimony given by Elizabeth
that day is widely credited for passage of the anti-
discrimination law.
(10) On February 16, 1945, Territorial Governor Ernest
Gruening signed into law an act prohibiting discrimination
against all citizens within the jurisdiction of the Territory
of Alaska in access to public accommodations and imposing a
penalty on any person who shall display any printed or
written sign indicating discrimination on racial grounds of
such full and equal enjoyment.
(11) 19 years before Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, and 18 years before the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr. delivered his ``I Have a Dream'' speech, one of
America's first antidiscrimination laws was enacted in the
Territory of Alaska, thanks to the efforts of Elizabeth and
Roy Peratrovich.
(12) Since 1989, the State of Alaska has observed Elizabeth
Peratrovich Day on February 16 of each year, and a visitor's
gallery of the Alaska House of Representatives in the Alaska
State Capitol has been named for Elizabeth Peratrovich.
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL.
(a) Presentation Authorized. --The President is authorized,
on behalf of the Congress, to posthumously award a gold medal
of appropriate design to Elizabeth Wanamaker Peratrovich and
Roy Peratrovich, in recognition of their outstanding and
enduring contributions to the civil rights and dignity of the
Native peoples of Alaska and the Nation.
(b) Design and Striking.--For the purpose of the
presentation referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary of
the Treasury (in this Act referred to as the ``Secretary'')
shall strike a gold medal with suitable emblems, devices, and
inscriptions, to be determined by the Secretary.
SEC. 3. DUPLICATE MEDALS.
Under such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, the
Secretary may strike and sell duplicates in bronze of the
gold medal struck pursuant to section 2 at a price sufficient
to cover the cost thereof, including labor, materials, dies,
use of machinery, and overhead expenses, and the cost of the
gold medal.
SEC. 4. STATUS AS NATIONAL MEDALS.
The medals struck under this Act are national medals for
purposes of chapter 51 of title 31, United States Code.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be charged against the United States Mint Public
Enterprise Fund such sum as may be appropriate to pay for the
cost of the medals authorized under section 2.
(b) Proceeds of Sale.--Amounts received from the sale of
duplicate bronze medals under section 3 shall be deposited in
the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund.
______
By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
S. 449. A bill to facilitate shareholder consideration of proposals
to make Settlement Common Stock under the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act available to missed enrollees, eligible elders, and
eligible persons born after December 18, 1971, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, more than 30 years have passed since
Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act which settled
the aboriginal land claims of the first inhabitants of Alaska by making
each eligible Alaska Native a shareholder in 1 of 13 regional
corporations and many of these people shareholders in a village
corporation as well. Each of the corporations was capitalized with land
and money.
The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act was a bold experiment, and
its implementation was not without controversy. As originally enacted,
the law provided that a shareholder of an Alaska Native Corporation
could sell his or her stock on or after December 18, 1991, without any
intervening action by the corporation.
This provision could have resulted in massive sales of stock by
Native shareholders in the ensuing years and caused the wholesale
transfer of Native assets to non-Native interests. Thanks to the
leadership of the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, this catastrophe
was averted through a series of amendments to the Act, signed into law
in 1987, which forbade the sale of corporate stock without the consent
of the corporation's shareholders.
This landmark legislation brought an end to the speculation about
whether the Native corporations would survive long enough to fulfill
the goal that Congress set for them, which was to be the springboard
for the economic, social and political empowerment of Alaska's Native
people, or alternatively execute the temporary transfer of land and
capital which would ultimately end up in non-Native hands. I am proud,
that none of the Native corporations have opened their stock to
purchase by outsiders. In fact, I see nothing on the horizon to suggest
that any of the corporations will take up this question in the
foreseeable future.
If history is any guide, the Alaska Native Corporations are destined
to remain in Native hands for a long time to come. This is good news
for the Native people of Alaska and it is good news for my State as a
whole.
I rise today to offer legislation, requested by the Alaska Federation
of Natives and the Association of ANCSA Presidents and CEOs, which is
intended to address a piece of unfinished business left by the 1987
amendments to the act.
Under the act, as originally passed, stock in an Alaska Native
corporation was generally only available to an Alaska Native born on or
before December 18, 1971 and those who might inherit stock from a
deceased shareholder. The original legislation gave little thought to
offering those born after December 18, 1971 a role in the corporation.
In effect, the original legislation disenfranchised an entire
generation born after the cutoff date from having a stake in the Native
corporations. It disenfranchised an entire generation of young people
from playing a role in the governance of the Native corporations and
from having an ownership interest in their Native lands.
The 1987 amendments allowed the shareholders of a Native corporation
to remedy this unintended consequence by allowing new stock to be
issued to the descendants of a corporation's original shareholders
provided that a majority of the outstanding shares agreed. Under the
1987 amendments, such stock could only be issued to those descendants
who had one quarter or more Alaska Native blood. A subsequent technical
amendment allowed the stock to be issued to descendants without regard
to their blood quantum, at the option of each corporation's
shareholders.
Time has demonstrated that the remedy for incorporating the
generation
[[Page S1662]]
born after December 18, 1971 is an imperfect one. This is sad because
one of the most important responsibilities faced by the Board of
Directors of any corporation is to plan for its own succession and the
succession of the corporation's leadership.
Since 1987, less than a handful of the 13 regional Native
corporations have put the question of enrolling the next generation to
their shareholders. However, all of the corporations that have
considered the question have voted in the affirmative.
Why then have more corporations not taken the question to a vote? The
answer seems to lie in the voting requirements imposed by the 1987
amendments, which essentially requires an affirmative vote of a
supermajority of the shares represented in person or by proxy at a
shareholder meeting. In order for a corporation to obtain an
affirmative vote of a majority of its outstanding shares, something of
the order of 80 percent of the corporation's stockholders must be
represented at the meeting in person or by proxy. Under present law,
any shareholder who does not attend the meeting or submit a proxy is
deemed to have voted in the negative.
When Doyon, Limited, the regional Native corporation for Interior
Alaska, took the question of enrolling the generation of descendants
born between 1971 and 1992 to its shareholders at its 1992 annual
meeting, some 79.2 percent of the shareholders expressed an opinion in
person or proxy. Still, the decision to approve the enrollment passed
by the narrowest of margins. This was a record quorum for the
corporation, which had 9,061 original shareholders, and the record has
yet to be broken.
Sealaska Corporation, the regional Native corporation for Southeast
Alaska, had more original shareholders than any other regional Native
corporation. Sealaska had 15,700 original shareholders, each owning 100
shares of stock. Sealaska has never enjoyed a quorum of 79.2 percent
and is pessimistic that such a quorum could ever be mustered.
Accordingly, Sealaska, which has been pondering the question of
enrolling the next generation for many years, has been deterred from
putting the question to a stockholder vote by the supermajority voting
requirement in the 1987 amendment.
Whether Sealaska enrolls the generation born after 1971 is not up to
me. It is up to the shareholders of Sealaska. But I think the Congress
owes it to the next generation of Alaska Natives to offer a level
playing field when it comes to participation in their Native
corporations.
In addressing the Alaska Native community, I often make reference to
a marvelous book by Alexandra J. McClanahan entitled ``Growing Up
Native in Alaska.'' In this book, A.J. profiled 27 Alaska Natives born
between 1957 and 1976 and allowed them in their own words to speak
about what it means to be an Alaska Native. Some of the people profiled
in the book received stock under the 1971 act while others missed the
deadline. I will quote from this book for the Record.
One of these 27 Alaska Natives is Jaeleen Kookesh-Araujo, a Tlingit
Indian, who grew up in the village of Angoon, AK. Jaeleen is a bright
young attorney who works at one of Washington's most respected law
firms. She is precisely the type of person who is well positioned to
lead her regional corporation, Sealaska, into the future. And she is
one of many Alaska Natives who was born after December 18, 1971.
Jaeleen has an opportunity to participate in Sealaska's governance
because her parents gave her some of their stock as a gift, but she
remains concerned that others of her generation have been left out.
This is what Jaeleen said about why it is important to make stock
available to the descendants.
I am a shareholder thanks to my parents gifting me shares,
but there are a lot of young people who are never going to be
shareholders. If you have one parent with several children,
they can try to allocate shares to all of them, but some may
be left out. Or, maybe you have a Native child who has been
adopted who doesn't have parents with shares--whatever. There
are going to be a lot of young Native people left out of this
corporate structure, and it's really sad. Eventually, there
may be a problem because you're going to have a lot of
young, talented Alaska Native people going out to get
educated. They're going to have a lot of expertise and
education in ways that might benefit the corporation, and
yet you have to wonder if they're really going to want to
be involved in these Native corporations that they don't
even belong to. I do want to be involved in the Native
corporations because this is my ancestors' land that
they're managing and developing and protecting . . .
I am not going to tell you that each of the 27 young people that A.J.
profiled feels the same way. Another young Native profiled in A.J.'s
book supported the status quo in spite of the fact that he was born 2
days after the cutoff.
I really don't think it's necessary to adjust for the
future generations. The idea of gifting and willing stock is
a really efficient method, and I think we ought to stick with
that, rather than having to expand and degrade the stock,
allowing the children to be shareholders. It's unfair that we
as children born after December 18th are not shareholders,
but in order to keep the integrity of the stock, I think it's
essential that we continue on with the method of granting,
gifting and willing stock.
The final quote is from a Doyon shareholder who was involved in that
company's decision to make new stock available to those born between
1971 and 1992.
When I first started I thought, ``I don't want my dividend
to get smaller.'' I was an intern in Doyon's Shareholder
Relations, so I was involved in the committee that was
studying the issue to enroll children born after 1971. When
it was time to vote, I thought: ``Darned if I'm letting my
nieces and nephews not be involved.'' I was a total
turnaround. There was no way I was going to leave them out.
There was no difference between me and them. They were just
born later.
As you can see, there may not be unanimity on the question of whether
new stock should be made available to the descendants. But I think we
all can agree that the debate is a healthy one and the debate will not
take place in earnest unless Congress relaxes the supermajority
standard imposed by the 1987 amendments.
The legislation I am introducing today would allow the shareholders
of a Native corporation to authorize new stock for those born after
December 18, 1971 by a majority vote of the shares present and voting
at a duly constituted meeting of the shareholders. Shareholders who
want to make the stock available will have the opportunity to vote yes.
Those who do not will have the opportunity to vote no. Those who choose
not to participate, place the fate of the question in the hands of
those who choose to participate. The majority prevails.
The 1987 amendments authorized Native corporations to make additional
shares available to Native elders and to enroll those who were eligible
to receive stock as original shareholders but who failed to enroll. The
number of missed enrollees is expected to be small. My legislation
would change the voting standard for these two categories to a majority
of the shares present and voting as well.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 449
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT TO ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS
SETTLEMENT ACT.
Section 36(d)(3) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act (43 U.S.C. 1629b) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(d)(3)'' and inserting ``(3)'';
(2) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``of this section'' and inserting ``or an amendment to
articles of incorporation under section 7(g)(1)(B)'';
(3) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) by striking ``, or'' and inserting ``; or''; and
(B) by striking ``such resolution'' and inserting ``the
resolution or amendment to articles of incorporation''; and
(4) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``such resolution''
and inserting ``the resolution or amendment to articles of
incorporation''.
______
By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Kerry, Mr.
Lautenberg, and Ms. Mikulski):
S. 450. A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require
a voter-verified paper record, to improve provisional balloting, to
impose additional requirements under such Act, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Mrs. CLINTON. 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:
[[Page S1663]]
S. 450
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 ``Count
Every Vote Act of 2005''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--VOTER VERIFICATION AND AUDITING
Sec. 101. Promoting accuracy, integrity, and security through
preservation of a voter-verified paper record or hard
copy.
Sec. 102. Requirement for mandatory recounts.
Sec. 103. Specific, delineated requirement of study, testing, and
development of best practices.
Sec. 104. Voter verification and audit capacity funding.
Sec. 105. Reports and provision of security consultation services.
Sec. 106. Improvements to voting systems.
TITLE II--PROVISIONAL BALLOTS
Sec. 201. Requirements for casting and counting provisional ballots.
TITLE III--ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT OF
2002
Subtitle A--Shortening Voter Wait Times
Sec. 301. Minimum required voting systems, poll workers, and election
resources.
Sec. 302. Requirements for jurisdictions with substantial voter wait
times.
Subtitle B--No-Excuse Absentee Voting
Sec. 311. No-excuse absentee voting.
Subtitle C--Collection and Dissemination of Election Data
Sec. 321. Data collection.
Subtitle D--Ensuring Well Run Elections
Sec. 331. Training of election officials.
Sec. 332. Impartial administration of elections.
Subtitle E--Standards for Purging Voters
Sec. 341. Standards for purging voters.
Subtitle F--Election Day Registration and Early Voting
Sec. 351. Election day registration.
Sec. 352. Early voting.
TITLE IV--VOTER REGISTRATION AND IDENTIFICATION
Sec. 401. Voter registration.
Sec. 402. Establishing voter identification.
Sec. 403. Requirement for Federal certification of technological
security of voter registration lists.
TITLE V--PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES
Sec. 501. Prohibition on certain campaign activities.
TITLE VI--ENDING DECEPTIVE PRACTICES
Sec. 601. Ending deceptive practices.
TITLE VII--CIVIC PARTICIPATION BY EX-OFFENDERS
Sec. 701. Voting rights of individuals convicted of criminal offenses.
TITLE VIII--FEDERAL ELECTION DAY ACT
Sec. 801. Short title.
Sec. 802. Federal Election Day as a public holiday.
Sec. 803. Study on encouraging government employees to serve as poll
workers.
TITLE IX--TRANSMISSION OF CERTIFICATE OF ASCERTAINMENT OF ELECTORS
Sec. 901. Transmission of certificate of ascertainment of electors.
TITLE X--STRENGTHENING THE ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION
Sec. 1001. Strengthening the Election Assistance Commission.
Sec. 1002. Repeal of exemption of Election Assistance Commission from
certain Government contracting requirements.
Sec. 1003. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE I--VOTER VERIFICATION AND AUDITING
SEC. 101. PROMOTING ACCURACY, INTEGRITY, AND SECURITY THROUGH
PRESERVATION OF A VOTER-VERIFIED PAPER RECORD
OR HARD COPY.
(a) Voter Verification and Manual Audit Capacity.--
(1) In general.--Section 301(a)(2) of the Help America Vote
Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481(a)(2)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(2) Voter verification and manual audit capacity.--
``(A) Voter verification.--
``(i) The voting system shall produce an individual voter-
verifiable paper record of the vote that shall be made
available for inspection and verification by the voter before
the vote is cast.
``(ii) The voting system shall provide the voter with an
opportunity to correct any error made by the system in the
voter-verifiable paper record before the permanent voter-
verified paper record is preserved in accordance with
subparagraph (B)(i).
``(B) Manual audit capacity.--The permanent voter-verified
paper record produced in accordance with subparagraph (A)
shall--
``(i) be preserved within the polling place, in the manner,
if any, in which all other paper ballots are preserved within
that polling place, or, in the manner employed by the
jurisdiction for preserving paper ballots in general, for
later use in any manual audit;
``(ii) be suitable for a manual audit equivalent to that of
a paper ballot voting system; and
``(iii) be available as the official record and shall be
the official record used for any recount conducted with
respect to any Federal election in which the system is
used.''.
(2) Prohibition of use of thermal paper.--Section 301(a) of
the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481(a)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(7) Prohibition of use of thermal paper.--The voter-
verified paper record produced in accordance with paragraph
(2)(A) shall not be produced on thermal paper, but shall
instead be produced on paper of archival quality.''.
(3) Conforming amendment.--Section 301(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the
Help America Vote Act (42 U.S.C. 15481(a)(1)(A)(ii)) is
amended by inserting ``and before the paper record is
produced under paragraph (2)'' before the semicolon at the
end.
(b) Voter-verification of Results for Individuals With
Disabilities and Language Minority Voters.--Paragraph (3) of
section 301(a) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42
U.S.C. 15481(a)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
``(3) Accessibility for individuals with disabilities and
for language minorities.--
``(A) In general.--The voting system shall--
``(i) be accessible for individuals with disabilities,
including nonvisual accessibility for the blind and visually
impaired, in a manner that provides the same opportunity for
access, participation (including privacy and independence),
inspection, and verification as for other voters;
``(ii) be accessible for language minority individuals to
the extent required under section 203 of the Voting Rights
Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973aa-1), in a manner that provides
the same opportunity for access, participation (including
privacy and independence), inspection, and verification as
for other voters;
``(iii) satisfy the requirement of clauses (i) and (ii)
through the use of at least one direct recording electronic
voting system or other voting system equipped for individuals
with disabilities at each polling place; and
``(iv) if purchased with funds made available under title
II on or after November 1, 2006, meet the voting system
standards for disability access (as outlined in this
paragraph).
``(B) Verification requirements.--Any direct recording
electronic voting system or other voting system described in
subparagraph (A)(iii) shall use a mechanism that separates
the function of vote generation from the function of vote
casting and shall produce, in accordance with paragraph
(2)(A), an individual paper record which--
``(i) shall be used to meet the requirements of paragraph
(2)(B);
``(ii) shall be available for visual, audio, and pictorial
inspection and verification by the voter, with language
translation available for all forms of inspection and
verification in accordance with the requirements of section
203 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965;
``(iii) shall not require the voter to handle the paper;
and
``(iv) shall not preclude the use of Braille or tactile
ballots for those voters who need them.
The requirement of clause (iii) shall not apply to any voting
system certified by the Independent Testing Authorities
before the date of the enactment of this Act.
``(C) Requirements for language minorities.--Any record
produced under subparagraph (B) shall be subject to the
requirements of section 203 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
to the extent such section is applicable to the State or
jurisdiction in which such record is produced.''.
(c) Additional Voting System Requirements.--Section 301(a)
of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481(a)), as
amended by subsection (a)(2), is amended by adding to the end
the following new paragraphs:
``(8) Instruction of election officials.--Each State shall
ensure that election officials are instructed on the right of
any individual who requires assistance to vote by reason of
blindness, other disability, or inability to read or write to
be given assistance by a person chosen by that individual
under section 208 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
``(9) Prohibition of use of undisclosed software in voting
systems.--No voting system shall at any time contain or use
any undisclosed software. Any voting system containing or
using software shall disclose the source code, object code,
and executable representation of that software to the
Commission, and the Commission shall make that source code,
object code, and executable representation available for
inspection upon request to any citizen.
``(10) Prohibition of use of wireless communication devices
in voting systems.--No voting system shall use any wireless
communication device.
``(11) Certification of software and hardware.--All
software and hardware used
[[Page S1664]]
in any electronic voting system shall be certified by
laboratories accredited by the Commission as meeting the
requirements of paragraphs (9) and (10).
``(12) Security standards for manufacturers of voting
systems used in federal elections.--
``(A) In general.--No voting system may be used in an
election for Federal office unless the manufacturer of such
system meets the requirements described in subparagraph (B).
``(B) Requirements described.--The requirements described
in this subparagraph are as follows:
``(i) The manufacturer shall conduct background checks on
individuals who are programmers and developers before such
individuals work on any software used in connection with the
voting system.
``(ii) The manufacturer shall document the chain of custody
for the handling of software used in connection with voting
systems.
``(iii) The manufacturer shall ensure that any software
used in connection with the voting system is not transferred
over the Internet.
``(iv) In the same manner and to the same extent described
in paragraph (9), the manufacturer shall provide the codes
used in any software used in connection with the voting
system to the Commission and may not alter such codes once
certification by the Independent Testing Authorities has
occurred unless such system is recertified.
``(v) The manufacturer shall implement procedures to ensure
internal security, as required by the Director of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology.
``(vi) The manufacturer shall meet such other requirements
as may be established by the Director of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology.''.
(d) Effective Date.--Each State and jurisdiction shall be
required to comply with the amendments made by this section
on and after November 1, 2006.
SEC. 102. REQUIREMENT FOR MANDATORY RECOUNTS.
On and after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Election Assistance Commission shall conduct random
unannounced manual mandatory recounts of the voter-verified
records of each election for Federal office (and, at the
option of the State or jurisdiction involved, of elections
for State and local office held at the same time as such an
election for Federal office) in 2 percent of the polling
locations (or, in the case of any polling location which
serves more than 1 precinct, 2 percent of the precincts) in
each State and with respect to 2 percent of the ballots cast
by uniformed and overseas voters immediately following the
election and shall promptly publish the results of those
recounts in the Federal Register. In addition, the
verification system used by the Election Assistance
Commission shall meet the error rate standards described in
section 301(a)(5) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002.
SEC. 103. SPECIFIC, DELINEATED REQUIREMENT OF STUDY, TESTING,
AND DEVELOPMENT OF BEST PRACTICES.
(a) In General.--Subtitle C of title II of the Help America
Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15381 et seq.) is amended by--
(1) redesignating section 247 as section 248; and
(2) by inserting after section 246 the following new
section:
``SEC. 247. STUDY, TESTING, AND DEVELOPMENT OF BEST PRACTICES
TO ENHANCE ACCESSIBILITY AND VOTER-VERIFICATION
MECHANISMS FOR DISABLED VOTERS.
``The Election Assistance Commission shall study, test, and
develop best practices to enhance accessibility and voter-
verification mechanisms for individuals with disabilities.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 104. VOTER-VERIFICATION AND AUDIT CAPACITY FUNDING.
(a) In General.--Subtitle D of title II of the Help America
Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15321 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following new part:
``PART 7--VOTER-VERIFICATION AND AUDIT CAPACITY FUNDING
``SEC. 297. VOTER-VERIFICATION AND AUDIT CAPACITY FUNDING.
``(a) Payments to States.--Subject to subsection (b), not
later than the date that is 30 days after the date of the
enactment of the Count Every Vote Act of 2005, the Election
Assistance Commission shall pay to each State an amount to
assist the State in paying for the implementation of the
voter-verification and audit capacity requirements of
paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 301(a), as amended by
subsections (a) and (b) of section 2 of such Act.
``(b) Limitation.--The amount paid to a State under
subsection (a) for each voting system purchased by a State
may not exceed the average cost of adding a printer with
accessibility features to each type of voting system that the
State could have purchased to meet the requirements described
in such subsection.
``SEC. 298. APPROPRIATION.
``There are authorized and appropriated $500,000,000 to the
Election Assistance Commission, without fiscal year
limitation, to make payments to States in accordance with
section 297(a). Furthermore, there are authorized and
appropriated $20,000,000 to the Election Assistance
Commission, for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010, in
addition to any amounts otherwise appropriated for
administrative costs to assist with conducting recounts, the
implementation of voter verification systems, and improved
security measures.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 105. REPORTS AND PROVISION OF SECURITY CONSULTATION
SERVICES.
(a) In General.--Subtitle C of title II of the Help America
Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15381 et seq.), as amended by
section 103, is amended by--
(1) redesignating section 248 as section 249; and
(2) by inserting after section 247 the following new
section:
``SEC. 248. REPORTS AND PROVISION OF SECURITY CONSULTATION
SERVICES.
``(a) Report to Congress on Security Review.--Not later
than 6 months after the date of the enactment of the Count
Every Vote Act of 2005, the Commission, in consultation with
the Director of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, shall submit to Congress a report on a proposed
security review and certification process for all voting
systems used in elections for Federal office, including a
description of the certification process to be implemented
under section 231.
``(b) Report to Congress on Operational and Management
Systems.--Not later than 3 months after the date of the
enactment of the Count Every Vote Act of 2005, the Commission
shall submit to Congress a report on operational and
management systems applicable with respect to elections for
Federal office, including the security standards for
manufacturers described in section 301(a)(7), that should be
employed to safeguard the security of voting systems,
together with a proposed schedule for the implementation of
each such system.
``(c) Provision of Security Consultation Services.--
``(1) In general.--On and after the date of the enactment
of the Count Every Vote Act of 2005, the Commission, in
consultation with the Director of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, shall provide security consultation
services to States and local jurisdictions with respect to
the administration of elections for Federal office.
``(2) Appropriation.--To carry out the purposes of
paragraph (1), $2,000,000 is appropriated for each of fiscal
years 2006 through 2010.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 106. IMPROVEMENTS TO VOTING SYSTEMS.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 301(a)(1) of
the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481(a)(1)(B))
is amended by striking ``, a punch card voting system, or a
central count voting system''.
(b) Clarification of Requirements for Punch Card Systems.--
Subparagraph (A) of section 301(a)(1) of the Help America
Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481(a)(1)(A)) is amended by
inserting ``punch card voting system,'' after ``any''.
(c) Effective Date.--Each State and jurisdiction shall be
required to comply with the amendments made by this section
on and after November 1, 2006.
(d) Residual Vote Benchmark.--.
(1) In general.--The error rate of the voting system (as
defined under section 301 of the Help America Vote Act of
2002) in counting ballots (determined by taking into account
only those errors which are attributable to the voting system
and not attributable to an act of the voter) shall not exceed
the error rate standards established under the voting systems
standards issued and maintained by Election Assistance
Commission.
(2) Residual ballot performance benchmark.--In addition to
the error rate standards described in paragraph (1), the
Election Assistance Commission shall issue and maintain a
uniform benchmark for the residual ballot error rate that
jurisdictions may not exceed. For purposes of the preceding
sentence, the residual vote error rate shall be equal to the
combination of overvotes, spoiled or uncountable votes, and
undervotes cast in the contest at the top of the ballot, but
excluding an estimate, based upon the best available
research, of intentional undervotes. The Commission shall
base the benchmark issued and maintained under this
subparagraph on evidence of good practices in representative
jurisdictions.
(3) Historically high intentional undervotes.--
(A) Congress finds that there are certain distinct
communities in certain geographic areas that have
historically high rates of intentional undervoting in
elections for Federal office, relative to the rest of the
Nation.
(B) In establishing the benchmark described in subparagraph
(B), the Election Assistance Commission shall--
(i) study and report to Congress on the occurrences of
distinct communities that have significantly higher than
average rates of historical intentional undervoting; and
(ii) promulgate for local jurisdictions in which that
distinct community has a substantial presence either a
separate benchmark or an exclusion from the national
benchmark, as appropriate.
TITLE II--PROVISIONAL BALLOTS
SEC. 201. REQUIREMENTS FOR CASTING AND COUNTING PROVISIONAL
BALLOTS.
(a) Eligibility of Provisional Ballots.--
[[Page S1665]]
(1) In general.--Paragraph (4) of section 302(a) of the
Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15482(a)(4)) is
amended by inserting at the end the following new sentence:
``The determination of eligibility shall be made without
regard to the location at which the voter cast the
provisional ballot and without regard to any requirement to
present identification to any election official.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall apply to States and jurisdictions on and after November
1, 2006.
(b) Timely Processing of Ballots.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 302 of the Help
America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15482(a)) is amended by
inserting after paragraph (5) the following new paragraph:
``(6) The appropriate State election official shall
develop, according to guidelines established by the Election
Assistance Commission, reasonable procedures to assure the
timely processing and counting of provisional ballots,
including--
``(A) standards for timely processing and counting to
assure that, after the conclusion of the provisional vote
count, parties and candidates may have full, timely, and
effective recourse to the recount and contest procedures
provided by State law; and
``(B) standards for the informed participation of
candidates and parties such as are consistent with reasonable
procedures to protect the security, confidentiality, and
integrity of personal information collected in the course of
the processing and counting of provisional ballots.''.
(2) Effective date.--Subsection (d) of section 302 of the
Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15482(d)) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``Each State'' and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
each State''; and
(B) by inserting at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Processing.--Each State shall be required to comply
with the requirements of subsection (a)(6) on and after the
date that is 6 months after the date of the enactment of the
Count Every Vote Act of 2005.''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall take effect on the date that is 6 months after the date
of enactment of this Act.
TITLE III--ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT OF
2002
Subtitle A--Shortening Voter Wait Times
SEC. 301. MINIMUM REQUIRED VOTING SYSTEMS, POLL WORKERS, AND
ELECTION RESOURCES.
(a) Minimum Requirements.--
(1) In general.--Title III of the Help America Vote Act of
2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481 et seq.) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subtitle:
``Subtitle C--Additional Requirements
``SEC. 321. MINIMUM REQUIRED VOTING SYSTEMS AND POLL WORKERS.
``(a) In General.--Each State shall provide for the minimum
required number of voting systems, poll workers, and other
election resources (including all other physical resources)
for each voting site on the day of any Federal election and
on any days during which such State allows early voting for a
Federal election in accordance with the standards determined
under section 299.
``(b) Voting Site.--For purposes of this section and
section 299, the term `voting site' means a polling location,
except that in the case of any polling location which serves
more than 1 precinct, such term shall mean a precinct.
``(c) Effective Date.--Each State shall be required to
comply with the requirements of this section on and after
October 1, 2006.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 401 of the Help America
Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15511) is amended by striking
``and 303'' and inserting ``303, and subtitle C''.
(b) Standards.--
(1) In general.--Title II of the Help America Vote Act of
2002 (42 U.S.C. 15321 et seq.) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subtitle:
``Subtitle E--Guidance and Standards
``SEC. 299. STANDARDS FOR ESTABLISHING THE MINIMUM REQUIRED
VOTING SYSTEMS AND POLL WORKERS.
``(a) In General.--Not later than January 1, 2006, the
Commission shall issue standards regarding the minimum number
of voting systems, poll workers, and other election resources
(including all other physical resources) required under
section 321 on the day of any Federal election and on any
days during which early voting is allowed for a Federal
election.
``(b) Distribution.--
``(1) In general.--The standards described in subsection
(a) shall provide for a uniform and nondiscriminatory
distribution of such systems, workers, and other resources,
and shall take into account, among other factors, the
following with respect to any voting site:
``(A) The voting age population.
``(B) Voter turnout in past elections.
``(C) The number of voters registered.
``(D) The number of voters who have registered since the
most recent Federal election.
``(E) Census data for the population served by such voting
site.
``(F) The educational levels and socio-economic factors of
the population served by such voting site.
``(G) The needs and numbers of disabled voters and voters
with limited English proficiency.
``(H) The type of voting systems used.
``(2) No factor dispositive.--The standards shall provide
that any distribution of such systems shall take into account
the totality of all relevant factors, and no single factor
shall be dispositive under the standards.
``(3) Purpose.--To the extent possible, the standards shall
provide for a distribution of voting systems, poll workers,
and other election resources with the goals of--
``(A) ensuring an equal waiting time for all voters in the
State; and
``(B) preventing a waiting time of over 1 hour at any
polling place.
``(c) Deviation.--The standards described in subsection (a)
shall permit States, upon giving reasonable public notice, to
deviate from any allocation requirements in the case of
unforseen circumstances such as a natural disaster or
terrorist attack.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 202 of the Help America
Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15322) is amended by
redesignating paragraphs (5) and (6) as paragraphs (6) and
(7), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph (4) the
following new paragraph:
``(5) carrying out the duties described under subtitle
E;''.
SEC. 302. REQUIREMENTS FOR JURISDICTIONS WITH SUBSTANTIAL
VOTER WAIT TIMES.
(a) In General.--The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42
U.S.C. 15301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following new title:
``TITLE X--REMEDIAL PLANS FOR STATES WITH EXCESSIVE VOTER WAIT TIMES
``SEC. 1001. REMEDIAL PLANS FOR STATES WITH EXCESSIVE VOTER
WAIT TIMES.
``(a) In General.--Each jurisdiction for which the Election
Assistance Commission determines that a substantial number of
voters waited more than 90 minutes to cast a vote in the
election on November 2, 2004, shall comply with a State
remedial plan established under this section.
``(b) State Remedial Plans.--For each State or jurisdiction
which is required to comply with this section, the Election
Assistance Commission shall establish a State remedial plan
to minimize the waiting times of voters.
``(c) Jurisdiction.--For purposes of this section, the term
`jurisdiction' has the same meaning as the term `registrar's
jurisdiction' under section 8 of the National Voter
Registration Act of 1993.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
Subtitle B--No-excuse Absentee Voting
SEC. 311. NO-EXCUSE ABSENTEE VOTING.
Subtitle C of title III of the Help America Vote Act of
2002, as added by this Act, is amended by adding at the end
the following new section:
``SEC. 322. NO-EXCUSE ABSENTEE VOTING.
``(a) In General.--Each State and jurisdiction shall permit
any person who is otherwise qualified to vote in an election
for Federal office to vote in such election in a manner other
than in person without regard to any restrictions on absentee
voting under State law.
``(b) Submission and Processing.--
``(1) In general.--Any ballot cast under subsection (a)
shall be submitted and processed in the manner provided for
absentee ballots under State law.
``(2) Deadline.--Any ballot cast under subsection (a) shall
be counted if postmarked or signed before the close of the
polls on election day and received by the appropriate State
election official on or before the date which is 10 days
after the date of the election or the date provided for the
receipt of absentee ballots under State law, whichever is
later.
``(c) Effective Date.--Each State and jurisdiction shall be
required to comply with the requirements of this section on
and after October 1, 2006.''.
Subtitle C--Collection and Dissemination of Election Data
SEC. 321. DATA COLLECTION.
Subtitle C of title III of the Help America Vote Act of
2002, as added and amended by this Act, is amended by adding
at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 323. PUBLIC REPORTS ON FEDERAL ELECTIONS.
``(a) In General.--Not later than 6 months after a Federal
election, each State and jurisdiction shall publicly report
information on such election, including the following
information with respect to the election:
``(1) The total number of individuals of voting age in the
population.
``(2) The total number of individuals registered to vote.
``(3) The total number of registered voters who voted.
``(4) The number of absentee and overseas ballots
requested, including the numbers of such ballots requested by
military personnel and citizens living overseas.
``(5) The number of absentee and overseas ballots cast,
including the numbers of such ballots cast by military
personnel and citizens living overseas.
``(6) The total number of absentee and overseas ballots
counted, including the number of such ballots which were cast
by military personnel and citizens living overseas that were
counted.
``(7) The total number of absentee and overseas ballots
rejected, including the numbers of such ballots which were
cast by military personnel and citizens living overseas
[[Page S1666]]
that were rejected, and the reasons for any such rejections.
``(8) The number of votes cast in early voting at the polls
before the day of the election.
``(9) The number of provisional ballots cast.
``(10) The number of provisional ballots counted.
``(11) The number of provisional ballots rejected and the
reasons any provisional ballots were rejected.
``(12) The number of voting sites (within the meaning of
section 321(b)) in the State or jurisdiction.
``(13) The number of voting machines in each such voting
site on election day and the type of each voting machine.
``(14) The total number of voting machines available in the
State or jurisdiction for distribution to each such voting
site.
``(15) The total number of voting machines actually
distributed to such voting sites (including voting machines
distributed as replacement voting machines on the day of the
election).
``(16) The total number of voting machines of any type,
whether electronic or manual, that malfunctioned on the day
of the election and the reason for any malfunction.
``(17) The total number of voting machines that were
replaced on the day of the election.
``(b) Report by EAC.--The Commission shall collect the
information published under subsection (a) and shall report
to Congress not later than 9 months after any Federal
election the following:
``(1) The funding and expenditures of each State under the
provisions of this Act.
``(2) The voter turnout in the election.
``(3) The number of registered voters and the number of
individuals eligible to register who are not registered.
``(4) The number of voters who have registered to vote in a
Federal election since the most recent such election.
``(5) The extent to which voter registration information
has been shared among government agencies (including any
progress on implementing statewide voter registration
databases under section 303(a)).
``(6) The extent to which accurate voter information has
been maintained over time.
``(7) The number and types of new voting systems purchased
by States and jurisdictions.
``(8) The amount of time individuals waited to vote.
``(9) The number of early votes, provisional votes,
absentee ballots, and overseas ballots distributed, cast, and
counted.
``(10) The amount of training that poll workers received.
``(11) The number of poll workers.
``(12) The number of polling locations and precincts.
``(13) The ratio of the number of voting machines to the
number of registered voters.
``(14) any other information pertaining to electoral
participation as the Commission deems appropriate.
``(c) Each State and jurisdiction shall be required to
comply with the requirements of this section on and after
November 1, 2006.''.
Subtitle D--Ensuring Well Run Elections
SEC. 331. TRAINING OF ELECTION OFFICIALS.
Subtitle C of title III of the Help America Vote Act of
2002, as added and amended by this Act, is amended by adding
at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 324. TRAINING OF ELECTION OFFICIALS.
``(a) In General.--Each State and jurisdiction shall
require that each person who works in a polling place during
an election for Federal office receives adequate training not
earlier than 3 months before the election.
``(b) Training.--The training required under subsection (a)
shall, at a minimum, include--
``(1) hands-on training on all voting systems used in the
election;
``(2) training on accommodating individuals with
disabilities, individuals who are of limited English
proficiency, and individuals who are illiterate;
``(3) training on requirements for the identification of
voters;
``(4) training on the appropriate use of provisional
ballots and the process for casting such ballots;
``(5) training on registering voters on the day of the
election;
``(6) training on which individuals have the authority to
challenge voter eligibility and the process for any such
challenges; and
``(7) training on security procedures.
``(c) Effective Date.--Each State and jurisdiction shall be
required to comply with the requirements of this section on
and after August 1, 2006.''.
SEC. 332. IMPARTIAL ADMINISTRATION OF ELECTIONS.
Subtitle C of title III of the Help America Vote Act of
2002, as added and amended by this Act, is amended by adding
at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 325. ELECTION ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS.
``(a) Publication of State Election Laws.--
``(1) In general.--Each State shall be required to publish
all State laws, regulations, procedures, and practices
relating to Federal elections on January 1 of each year in
which there is a regularly scheduled election for a Federal
office.
``(2) Maintenance of laws on the internet.--Each State
shall be required to maintain an updated version of all
material published under paragraph (1) on an easily
accessible public web site on the Internet.
``(b) Notice of Changes in State Election Laws.--Not later
than 15 days prior to any Federal election, each State shall
issue a public notice describing all changes in State law
affecting voting in Federal elections and the administration
of Federal elections since the most recent prior such
election. If any State or local government makes any change
affecting the administration of Federal elections within 15
days of a Federal election, the State or local government
shall provide adequate public notice.
``(c) Observers.--
``(1) Standards.--Each State shall issue nondiscriminatory
standards for granting access to nonpartisan election
observers. Such standards shall take into account the need to
avoid disruption and crowding in polling places.
``(2) In general.--Each State shall allow uniform and
nondiscriminatory access to any polling place for purposes of
observing a Federal election to nonpartisan domestic
observers (including voting rights and civil rights
organizations) and international observers in accordance with
the standards published under paragraph (1).
``(3) Notice of denial of observation request.--Each State
shall issue a public notice with respect to any denial of a
request by any observer described in paragraph (2) for access
to any polling place for purposes of observing a Federal
election. Such notice shall be issued not later than 24 hours
after such denial.
``(d) Effective Date.--Each State shall be required to
comply with the requirements of this section on and after
October 1, 2006.''.
Subtitle E--Standards for Purging Voters
SEC. 341. STANDARDS FOR PURGING VOTERS.
Subtitle C of title III of the Help America Vote Act of
2002, as added and amended by this Act, is amended by adding
at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 326. REMOVAL FROM VOTER REGISTRATION LIST.
``(a) Public Notice.--Not later than 45 days before any
Federal election, each State shall provide public notice of--
``(1) all names which have been removed from the voter
registration list of such State under section 303 since the
later of the most recent election for Federal office or the
day of the most recent previous public notice provided under
this section; and
``(2) the criteria, processes, and procedures used to
determine which names were removed.
``(b) Notice to Individual Voters.--
``(1) In general.--No individual shall be removed from the
voter registration list under section 303 unless such
individual is first provided with a notice which meets the
requirements of paragraph (2).
``(2) Requirements of notice.--The notice required under
paragraph (1) shall be--
``(A) provided to each voter in a uniform and
nondiscriminatory manner;
``(B) consistent with the requirements of the National
Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg et seq.);
and
``(C) in the form and manner prescribed by the Election
Assistance Commission.
``(c) Privacy.--No State or jurisdiction may disclose the
reason for the removal of any voter from the voter
registration list unless ordered to do so by a court of
competent jurisdiction.
``(d) Effective Date.--Each State shall be required to
comply with the requirements of this section on and after
September 1, 2006.''.
Subtitle F--Election Day Registration and Early Voting
SEC. 351. ELECTION DAY REGISTRATION.
(a) Requirement.--Subtitle C of title III of the Help
America Vote Act of 2002, as added and amended by this Act,
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 327. ELECTION DAY REGISTRATION.
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Registration.--Notwithstanding section 8(a)(1)(D) of
the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C.
1973gg-6), each State shall permit any individual on the day
of a Federal election--
``(A) to register to vote in such election at the polling
place using the form established by the Election Assistance
Commission pursuant to section 299A; and
``(B) to cast a vote in such election and have that vote
counted in the same manner as a vote cast by an eligible
voter who properly registered during the regular registration
period.
``(2) Exception.--The requirements under paragraph (1)
shall not apply to a State in which, under a State law in
effect continuously on and after the date of the enactment of
this Act, there is no voter registration requirement for
individuals in the State with respect to elections for
Federal office.
``(b) Effective Date.--Each State shall be required to
comply with the requirements of subsection (a) on and after
October 1, 2006.''.
(b) Election Day Registration Form.--Subtitle E of title II
of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, as added by this Act,
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 299A. ELECTION DAY REGISTRATION FORM.
``The Commission shall develop an election day registration
form for elections for Federal office.''.
SEC. 352. EARLY VOTING.
(a) Requirements.--Subtitle C of title III of the Help
America Vote Act of 2002, as added and amended by this Act,
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
[[Page S1667]]
``SEC. 328. EARLY VOTING.
``(a) In General.--Each State shall allow individuals to
vote in an election for Federal office not less than 15 days
prior to the day scheduled for such election in the same
manner as voting is allowed on such day.
``(b) Minimum Early Voting Requirements.--Each polling
place which allows voting prior to the day of a Federal
election pursuant to subsection (a) shall--
``(1) allow such voting for no less than 4 hours on each
day (other than Sunday); and
``(2) have minimum uniform hours each day for which such
voting occurs.
``(c) Application of Election Day Registration to Early
Voting.--A State shall permit individuals to register to vote
at each polling place which allows voting prior to the day of
a Federal election pursuant to subsection (a) in the same
manner as the State is required to permit individuals to
register to vote and vote on the day of the election under
section 327.
``(d) Effective Date.--Each State shall be required to
comply with the requirements of this section on and after
October 1, 2006.''.
(b) Standards for Early Voting.--Subtitle E of the Help
America Vote Act of 2002, as added and amended by this Act,
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 299B. STANDARDS FOR EARLY VOTING.
``(a) In General.--The Commission shall issue standards for
the administration of voting prior to the day scheduled for a
Federal election. Such standards shall include the
nondiscriminatory geographic placement of polling places at
which such voting occurs and the public listing of the date,
time, and location of polling places no earlier than 10 days
before the date on which such voting begins.
``(b) Deviation.--The standards described in subsection (a)
shall permit States, upon giving reasonable public notice, to
deviate from any requirement in the case of unforeseen
circumstances such as a natural disaster or a terrorist
attack.''.
TITLE IV--VOTER REGISTRATION AND IDENTIFICATION
SEC. 401. VOTER REGISTRATION.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (4) of section 303(b) of the
Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15483(b)(4)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) Exception.--On and after the date of the enactment of
this Act--
``(i) in lieu of the questions and statements required
under subparagraph (A), such mail voter registration form
shall include an affidavit to be signed by the registrant
attesting both to citizenship and age; and
``(ii) subparagraph (B) shall not apply.''.
(b) Processing of Registration Applications.--
(1) In general.--Subtitle C of title III of the Help
America Vote Act of 2002, as added and amended by this Act,
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 329. PROCESSING OF REGISTRATION APPLICATIONS.
``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, each State and jurisdiction shall accept and process a
voter registration application for an election for Federal
office unless there is a material omission or information
that specifically affects the eligibility of the voter.
``(b) Presumption to Register.--There shall be a
presumption that persons who submit voter registration
applications should be registered.
``(c) Presumption to Cure Material Omission.--Each State
and jurisdiction shall--
``(1) provide a process to permit voters an opportunity to
cure any material omission within a reasonable period of
time; and
``(2) accept any application which is so cured as having
been filed on the date on which such application is
originally received.
``(d) Effective Date.--Each State and jurisdiction shall be
required to comply with the requirements of this subsection
on and after October 1, 2006.''.
(2) Material omission.--Subtitle E of title II of the Help
America Vote Act of 2002, as added and amended by this Act,
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 299C. STANDARDS FOR MATERIAL OMISSION FROM
REGISTRATION FORMS.
``(a) In General.--The Election Assistance Commission shall
establish guidelines as to what does and does not constitute
a `material omission or information that specifically affects
the eligibility of the voter' for purposes of section 329.
``(b) Certain Information Not a Material Omission.--In
establishing the guidelines under subsection (a), the
Commission shall provide that the following shall not
constitute a `material omission or information that
specifically affects the eligibility of the voter':
``(1) The failure to provide a social security number or
driver's license number.
``(2) The failure to provide information concerning
citizenship or age in a manner other than the attestation
required under section 9(b)(2) of the National Voter
Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973-gg-7).''.
(c) Internet Registration.--
(1) In general.--Subtitle C of title II of the Help America
Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15381), as added and amended by
this Act, is amended by redesignating section 249 as section
250 and by inserting after section 248 the following new
section:
``SEC. 249. STUDY ON INTERNET REGISTRATION AND OTHER USES OF
THE INTERNET IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS.
``(a) Study.--The Commission shall conduct a study on--
``(1) the feasibility of voter registration through the
Internet for Federal elections; and
``(2) other uses of the Internet in Federal elections,
including--
``(A) the use of the Internet to publicize information
related to Federal elections; and
``(B) the use of the Internet to vote in Federal elections.
``(b) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
the enactment of the Count Every Vote Act of 2005, the
Commission shall transmit to Congress a report on the results
of the study conducted under subsection (a).''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 402. ESTABLISHING VOTER IDENTIFICATION.
(a) In General.--
(1) In person voting.--Clause (i) of section 303(b)(2)(A)
of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C.
15483(b)(2)(A)(i)) is amended by striking ``or'' at the end
of subclause (I) and by adding at the end the following new
subclause:
``(III) executes a written affidavit attesting to such
individual's identity; or''.
(2) Voting by mail.--Clause (ii) of section 303(b)(2)(A) of
the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C.
15483(b)(2)(A)(ii)) is amended by striking ``or'' at the end
of subclause (I), by striking the period at the end of
subclause (II) and inserting ``; or'', and by adding at the
end the following new subclause:
``(III) a written affidavit, executed by such individual,
attesting to such individual's identity.''.
(3) Effective date.--Each State and jurisdiction shall be
required to comply with the amendments made by this
subsection on and after November 1, 2006.
(b) Standards for Verifying Voter Information.--Subtitle E
of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, as added and amended by
this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``SEC. 299D. VOTER IDENTIFICATION.
``The Commission shall develop standards for verifying the
identification information required under section 303(a)(5)
in connection with the registration of an individual to vote
in a Federal election.''.
(c) Funding for Free Photo Identifications.--Subtitle D of
title II of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C.
15401 et seq.), as amended by this Act, is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``PART 8--PHOTO IDENTIFICATION
``SEC. 298A. PAYMENTS FOR FREE PHOTO IDENTIFICATION.
``(a) In General.--In addition to any other payments made
under this subtitle, the Election Assistance Commission shall
make payments to States to promote the issuance to registered
voters of free photo identifications.
``(b) Use of Funds.--A State receiving a payment under this
part shall use the payment only to provide free photo
identification cards to registered voters who do not have an
identification card and who cannot obtain an identification
card without undue hardship.
``(c) Allocation of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--The amount of the grant made to a State
under this part for a year shall be equal to the product of--
``(A) the total amount appropriated for payments under this
part for the year under section 298B; and
``(B) an amount equal to--
``(i) the voting age population of the State (as reported
in the most recent decennial census); divided by
``(ii) the total voting age of all eligible States which
submit an application for payments under this part (as
reported in the most recent decennial census).
``SEC. 298B. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``(a) In General.--In addition to any other amounts
authorized to be appropriated under this subtitle, there are
authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 for fiscal year
2006 and such sums as are necessary for each subsequent
fiscal year for the purpose of making payments under section
298A.
``(b) Availability.--Any amounts appropriated pursuant to
the authority of this section shall remain available until
expended.''.
SEC. 403. REQUIREMENT FOR FEDERAL CERTIFICATION OF
TECHNOLOGICAL SECURITY OF VOTER REGISTRATION
LISTS.
(a) In General.--Section 303(a)(3) of the Help America Vote
Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15483(a)(3)) is amended by striking
``measures to prevent the'' and inserting ``measures, as
certified by the Election Assistance Commission, to
prevent''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
TITLE V--PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES
SEC. 501. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES.
(a) In General.--Title III of the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by inserting
after section 319 the following new section:
``CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES BY ELECTION OFFICIALS AND VOTING SYSTEM
MANUFACTURERS
``Sec. 319A. (a) Prohibition.--
``(1) Chief state election officials.--It shall be unlawful
for any chief State election
[[Page S1668]]
official to take part in prohibited political activities with
respect to any election for Federal office over which such
official has managerial authority.
``(2) Voting system manufacturers.--It shall be unlawful
for any person who owns or serves as the chief executive
officer, chief financial officer, chief operating officer, or
president of any entity that designs or manufacturers a
voting system to take part in prohibited political activities
with respect to any election for a Federal office for which a
voting system produced by such manufacturer is used.
``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
``(1) Chief state election official.--The term `chief State
election official' means the individual designated as such
under section 10 of the National Voter Registration Act of
1993.''
``(2) Prohibited political activities.--The term
`prohibited political activities' means campaigning to
support or oppose a candidate or slate of candidates for
Federal office, making public speeches in support of such a
candidate, fundraising and collecting contributions on behalf
of such a candidate, distributing campaign materials with
respect to such a candidate, organizing campaign events with
respect to such a candidate, and serving in any position on
any political campaign committee of such a candidate.
``(b) Ownership.--For purposes of subsection (a)(2), a
person shall be considered to own an entity if such person
controls at least 20 percent, by vote or value, of the
entity.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
TITLE VI--ENDING DECEPTIVE PRACTICES
SEC. 601. ENDING DECEPTIVE PRACTICES.
(a) In General.--
(1) Subsection (b) of section 2004 of the Revised Statutes
(42 U.S.C. 1971(b)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``No person'' and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--No person''; and
(B) by inserting at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Deceptive acts.--No person, whether acting under
color of law or otherwise, shall knowingly deceive any other
person regarding the time, place, or manner of conducting a
general, primary, run-off, or special election for the office
of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of
the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives,
Delegates, or Commissioners from the Territories or
possessions; nor shall any person knowingly deceive any
person regarding the qualifications or restrictions of voter
eligibility for any general, primary, run-off, or special
election for the office of President, Vice President,
presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the
House of Representatives, Delegates, or Commissioners from
the Territories or possessions.''.
(2) The heading of section 2004(b) of the Revised Statutes
is amended by striking ``or coercion'' and inserting
``coercion, or deceptive acts''.
(b) Criminal Penalty.--Section 594 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``Whoever'' and inserting the following:
``(a) Intimidation.--Whoever''; and
(2) by inserting at the end the following:
``(b) Deceptive Acts.--Whoever knowingly deceives any
person regarding--
``(1) the time, place, or manner of conducting a general,
primary, run-off, or special election for the office of
President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of
the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives,
Delegates, or Commissioners from the Territories or
possessions; or
``(2) the qualifications or restrictions of voter
eligibility for any general, primary, run-off or special
election for the office of President, Vice President,
presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the
House of Representatives, Delegates, or Commissioners from
the Territories or possessions
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than one
year, or both.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
TITLE VII--CIVIC PARTICIPATION BY EX-OFFENDERS
SEC. 701. VOTING RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS CONVICTED OF CRIMINAL
OFFENSES.
(a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the Civic
Participation Act of 2005.
(b) Findings and Purpose.--
(1) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(A) The right to vote is the most basic constitutive act of
citizenship and regaining the right to vote reintegrates
offenders into free society. The right to vote may not be
abridged or denied by the United States or by any State on
account of race, color, gender, or previous condition of
servitude. Basic constitutional principles of fairness and
equal protection require an equal opportunity for United
States citizens to vote in Federal elections.
(B) Congress has ultimate supervisory power over Federal
elections, an authority that has repeatedly been upheld by
the Supreme Court.
(C) Although State laws determine the qualifications for
voting in Federal elections, Congress must ensure that those
laws are in accordance with the Constitution. Currently,
those laws vary throughout the Nation, resulting in
discrepancies regarding which citizens may vote in Federal
elections.
(D) An estimated 4,700,000 individuals in the United
States, or 1 in 44 adults, currently cannot vote as a result
of a felony conviction. Women represent about 676,000 of
those 4,700,000.
(E) State disenfranchisement laws disproportionately impact
ethnic minorities.
(F) Fourteen States disenfranchise some or all ex-offenders
who have fully served their sentences, regardless of the
nature or seriousness of the offense.
(G) In those States that disenfranchise ex-offenders who
have fully served their sentences, the right to vote can be
regained in theory, but in practice this possibility is often
illusory.
(H) In those States that disenfranchise ex-offenders, an
ex-offender's right to vote can only be restored through a
gubernatorial pardon or order, or a certificate granted by a
parole board. Some States require waiting periods as long as
10 years after completion of the sentence before an ex-
offender can initiate the application for restoration of the
right to vote.
(I) Offenders convicted of a Federal offense often have
additional barriers to regaining voting rights. Many States
do not offer a restoration procedure for Federal offenders
who have completed supervision. The only method available to
such persons is a Presidential pardon.
(J) Few persons who seek to have their right to vote
restored have the financial and political resources needed to
succeed.
(K) Thirteen percent of the African-American adult male
population, or 1,400,000 African-American men, are
disenfranchised. Given current rates of incarceration, 3 in
10 African-American men in the next generation will be
disenfranchised at some point during their lifetimes.
Hispanic citizens are also disproportionately
disenfranchised, since those citizens are disproportionately
represented in the criminal justice system.
(L) The discrepancies described in this paragraph should be
addressed by Congress, in the name of fundamental fairness
and equal protection.
(2) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to restore
fairness in the Federal election process by ensuring that ex-
offenders who have fully served their sentences are not
denied the right to vote.
(c) Definitions.--In this title:
(1) Correctional institution or facility.--The term
``correctional institution or facility'' means any prison,
penitentiary, jail, or other institution or facility for the
confinement of individuals convicted of criminal offenses,
whether publicly or privately operated, except that such term
does not include any residential community treatment center
(or similar public or private facility).
(2) Election.--The term ``election'' means--
(A) a general, special, primary, or runoff election;
(B) a convention or caucus of a political party held to
nominate a candidate;
(C) a primary election held for the selection of delegates
to a national nominating convention of a political party; or
(D) a primary election held for the expression of a
preference for the nomination of persons for election to the
office of President.
(3) Federal office.--The term ``Federal office'' means the
office of President or Vice President, or of Senator or
Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to,
Congress.
(4) Parole.--The term ``parole'' means parole (including
mandatory parole), or conditional or supervised release
(including mandatory supervised release), imposed by a
Federal, State, or local court.
(5) Probation.--The term ``probation'' means probation,
imposed by a Federal, State, or local court, with or without
a condition on the individual involved concerning--
(A) the individual's freedom of movement;
(B) the payment of damages by the individual;
(C) periodic reporting by the individual to an officer of
the court; or
(D) supervision of the individual by an officer of the
court.
(d) Rights of Citizens.--The right of an individual who is
a citizen of the United States to vote in any election for
Federal office shall not be denied or abridged because that
individual has been convicted of a criminal offense unless,
at the time of the election, such individual--
(1) is serving a felony sentence in a correctional
institution or facility; or
(2) is on parole or probation for a felony offense
(e) Enforcement.--
(1) Attorney general.--The Attorney General may bring a
civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain
such declaratory or injunctive relief as is necessary to
remedy a violation of this section.
(2) Private right of action.--
(A) Notice.--A person who is aggrieved by a violation of
this section may provide written notice of the violation to
the chief election official of the State involved.
(B) Action.--Except as provided in subparagraph (C), if the
violation is not corrected within 90 days after receipt of a
notice provided under subparagraph (A), or within
[[Page S1669]]
20 days after receipt of the notice if the violation occurred
within 120 days before the date of an election for Federal
office, the aggrieved person may bring a civil action in such
a court to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief with
respect to the violation.
(C) Action for violation shortly before a federal
election.--If the violation occurred within 30 days before
the date of an election for Federal office, the aggrieved
person shall not be required to provide notice to the chief
election official of the State under subparagraph (A) before
bringing a civil action in such a court to obtain declaratory
or injunctive relief with respect to the violation.
(f) Relation to Other Laws.--
(1) No prohibition on less restrictive laws.--Nothing in
this section shall be construed to prohibit a State from
enacting any State law that affords the right to vote in any
election for Federal office on terms less restrictive than
those terms established by this section.
(2) No limitation on other laws.--The rights and remedies
established by this section shall be in addition to all other
rights and remedies provided by law, and shall not supersede,
restrict, or limit the application of the Voting Rights Act
of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973 et seq.) or the National Voter
Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg et seq.).
(g) Notification of Restoration of Voting Rights.--Subtitle
C of title III of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, as added
and amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``SEC. 330. NOTIFICATION OF RESTORATION OF VOTING RIGHTS.
``(a) Notification.--
``(1) In general.--On the date determined under subsection
(b), each State shall notify any qualified ex-offender who
resides in the State that such qualified ex-offender has the
right to vote in an election for Federal office pursuant to
the Civic Participation Act of 2005 and may register to vote
in any such election.
``(2) Qualified ex-offender.--For the purpose of this
section, the term `qualified ex-offender' means any
individual who resides in the State who has been convicted of
a criminal offense and is not serving a felony sentence in a
correctional institution or facility and who is not on parole
or probation for a felony offense.
``(b) Date of Notification.--The notification required
under subsection (a) shall be given on the later of the date
on which such individual is released from a correctional
institution or facility for serving a felony sentence or the
date on which such individual is released from parole for a
felony offense.
``(c) Definitions.--Any term which is used in this section
that is also used in the Civic Participation Act of 2005
shall have the meaning given to such term in that Act.
``(d) Effective Date.--Each State shall be required to
comply with the requirements of this section on and after the
date of the enactment of the Civic Participation Act of
2005.''.
(h) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--This section shall apply to citizens of
the United States voting in any election for Federal office
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Amendments.--The amendment made by subsection (g) shall
take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
TITLE VIII--FEDERAL ELECTION DAY ACT
SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Federal Election Day Act
of 2005''.
SEC. 802. FEDERAL ELECTION DAY AS A PUBLIC HOLIDAY.
(a) Election Day as a Federal Holiday.--Section 6103(a) of
title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
the matter relating to Columbus Day, the following
undesignated paragraph:
``Federal Election Day, the Tuesday next after the first
Monday in November in each even numbered year.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 241(b) of the Help
America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15381(b)) is amended by
striking paragraph (10) and by redesignating paragraphs (11)
through (19) as paragraphs (10) through (18), respectively.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 803. STUDY ON ENCOURAGING GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES TO SERVE
AS POLL WORKERS.
(a) In General.--Subtitle C of title II of the Help America
Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15381), as added and amended by
this Act, is amended by redesignating section 250 as section
250A and by inserting after section 249 the following new
section:
``SEC. 250. STUDY ON ENCOURAGING GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES TO
SERVE AS POLL WORKERS.
``(a) Study.--The Commission shall conduct a study on
appropriate methods to encourage State and local government
employees to serve as poll workers in Federal elections.
``(b) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
the enactment of the Count Every Vote Act of 2005, the
Commission shall transmit to Congress a report on the results
of the study conducted under subsection (a).
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Of the amount
authorized to be appropriated under section 210 for fiscal
year 2006, $100,000 shall be authorized solely to carry out
the purposes of this section.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
TITLE IX--TRANSMISSION OF CERTIFICATE OF ASCERTAINMENT OF ELECTORS
SEC. 901. TRANSMISSION OF CERTIFICATE OF ASCERTAINMENT OF
ELECTORS.
(a) In General.--Section 6 of title 3, United States Code,
is amended--
(1) by inserting ``and before the date that is 6 days
before the date on which the electors are to meet under
section 7,'' after ``under and in pursuance of the laws of
such State providing for such ascertainment,''; and
(2) by striking ``by registered mail'' and inserting ``by
overnight courier''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
TITLE X--STRENGTHENING THE ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION
SEC. 1001. STRENGTHENING THE ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION.
(a) Rulemaking Authority.--Part 1 of subtitle A of Title II
of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15321 et
seq.) is amended by striking section 209.
(b) Budget Requests.--Part 1 of subtitle A of title II of
the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15321 et seq.),
as amended by subsection (a), is amended by inserting after
section 208 the following new section:
``SEC. 209. SUBMISSION OF BUDGET REQUESTS.
``Whenever the Commission submits any budget estimate or
request to the President or the Office of Management and
Budget, it shall concurrently transmit a copy of such
estimate or request to the Congress and to the Committee on
House Administration of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate.''.
(c) Exemption From Paperwork Reduction Act.--Paragraph (1)
of section 3502 of title 44, United States Code, is amended
by redesignating subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) as
subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E), respectively, and by
inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new
subparagraph:
``(B) the Election Assistance Commission;''.
(d) NIST Authority.--Subtitle E of title II of the Help
America Vote Act of 2002, as added and amended by this Act,
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 299E. TECHNICAL SUPPORT.
``At the request of the Commission, the Director of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology shall provide
the Commission with technical support necessary for the
Commission to carry out its duties under this title.''.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 210 of the
Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15330) is amended by
striking ``for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2005 such
sums as may be necessary (but not to exceed $10,000,000 for
each such year)'' and inserting ``$35,000,000 for fiscal year
2006 (of which $4,000,000 are authorized solely to carry out
the purposes of section 299E) and such sums as may be
necessary for the succeeding fiscal year''.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 1002. REPEAL OF EXEMPTION OF ELECTION ASSISTANCE
COMMISSION FROM CERTAIN GOVERNMENT CONTRACTING
REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 205 of the Help America Vote Act
of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15325) is amended by striking subsection
(e).
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to contracts entered into by the
Election Assistance Commission on or after the date of
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 1003. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Subsection (a) of section 257 of the Help America Vote Act
of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15408(a)) is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraphs:
``(4) For fiscal year 2006, $3,000,000,000.
``(5) For each fiscal year after 2006, such sums as are
necessary.''.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I join Senator Clinton in
introducing the Count Every Vote Act of 2005.
The 2000 election exposed a number of serious problems with the
accuracy and fairness of election procedures in this country, as well
as the reliability of certain types of voting technology. As a result
of those irregularities, many eligible voters were effectively
disenfrachised and thus deprived of one of our most fundamental rights.
In the 2004 election, we again saw serious irregularities when voters
across this country went to the polls to cast their votes. From
untrustworthy electronic voting machines, to partisan secretaries of
state, to outrageously long lines at the polls, the election system was
far from what voters are entitled to have.
At Kenyon College in Ohio, for example, voters were made to wait in
line until nearly 4 a.m. to vote because there were only two machines
for 1,300 voters. In the Columbus area alone, an estimated 5,000 to
10,000 voters left
[[Page S1670]]
polling places, out of frustration, without having voted. In Cleveland,
thousands of provisional ballots were disqualified after poll workers
gave faulty instructions to voters.
Because of these irregularities--as well as voting irregularities in
many other places--I joined Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio
in objecting to the certification of the Ohio electoral votes on
January 7, 2005. I did this to cast the light of truth on a flawed
system that must be fixed now. Americans deserve a system where every
vote is counted and can be verified. And, Congress must do more to give
confidence to all of our people that their votes matter.
In 2002, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which took
important steps toward electoral reform. Since the enactment of HAVA,
however, concerns have been raised about the security of voting
machines and the inability of the majority of voters who may use these
machines to be able to adequately verify their vote and to ensure that
the vote they intended was both cast and counted. In addition, many
other problems in our Federal election system--including long wait
times in which to vote, the erroneous purging of voters, voter
suppression and intimidation, and unequal access to the voting
process--remain.
Last year, I sponsored legislation to address some of these issues. I
also joined Senator Clinton and former Senator Bob Graham in
introducing an election reform bill. I am pleased to again join Senator
Clinton today to introduce the Count Every Vote Act of 2005--the CEVA
Voting Act. It requires voting machines to have a voter-verified paper
trail for use by all individuals, including language minority voters,
illiterate voters, and voters with disabilities; and it mandates
national standards in the registration of voters and the counting of
provisional ballots. All provisions of this legislation are to be in
effect no later than the November 2006 Federal election.
Mr. President, in a democracy, the vote of every citizen counts. We
must make sure that every citizen's vote is counted--and counted
accurately and fairly so that the American people have confidence in
the results. HAVA was a good first step. The CEVA Voting Act is the
next step, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort.
______
By Mr. AKAKA:
S. 451. A bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act to ensure that all
dogs and cats used by research facilities are obtained legally; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Pet Safety
and Protection Act of 2005. My legislation amends the Animal Welfare
Act to ensure that all companion animals such as dogs and cats used by
research facilities are obtained legally.
Over 30 years ago, Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act, AWA,
authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to set and enforce standards
protecting animals used in biomedical research, bred for commercial
sale, exhibited to the public, or commercially transported from
inhumane treatment. Despite the well-meaning intentions of the AWA and
the enforcement efforts of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA,
the act fails to provide reliable protection against the actions of
some unethical animal dealers.
Under the AWA, class B animal dealers are defined as individuals
whose business includes the purchase, sale, or transport of animals in
commerce, including dogs and cats intended for use at research
facilities. To the dismay of animal welfare advocates and pet owners,
some class B, or ``random source,'' dealers have resorted to theft and
deception to collect animals for resale. In many instances these
animals were found living under inhumane conditions.
As recently as August of 2003, USDA agents executed a warrant to
investigate a class B dealer from Arkansas suspected of violations of
the AWA for the second time in several years. Many claims have been
levied against this dealer, and approximately 125 dogs were seized by
federal agents during this week-long search. The complaint investigated
by the USDA against the dealer alleged that the respondents'
veterinarian provided for them falsified official health certificates
for cats and dogs, and also provided them with blank, undated, and
signed health certificates. It also alleged that the dealer failed to
provide the barest standards of care, husbandry, and housing for the
animals on the premises. In addition, it alleged that its proprietors
were aware that some of the companion animals brought to the facility
were stolen, and that the business maintained a list of over 50
``bunchers,'' individuals who obtain animals and sell them to ``random
source'' animal dealers. Bunchers have a variety of methods of
obtaining companion animals, including responding to newspaper ads
offering free animals, trespassing on private property to abduct the
animals from yards, and house burglaries.
I am pleased to report that the civil trial against this class B
dealer was settled on January 28, 2005. Under the agreement, the dealer
and others associated with the business had their licenses permanently
revoked. In addition, fines up to $262,700 were imposed by the USDA,
which included a personal civil penalty of $12,700. The dealer also is
prohibited from engaging in any activities under which the licenses
were revoked for 5 years.
While this case resulted in a landmark settlement, I would like to
remind my colleagues that if it were not for an outside organization
that filed a complaint with the USDA, this class B dealer could still
be in operation today. We, in Congress, need to ensure that dealers
such as the one in Arkansas are unable to acquire, house, and sell
pets.
The Pet Safety and Protection Act of 2005 strengthens the AWA by
prohibiting the use of class B dealers as suppliers of dogs and cats to
research laboratories. Contrary to what others might say, my
legislation will not be a burden on research facilities because only 2
percent of the approximately 2,051 class B dealers in the United States
currently sell cats and dogs to research facilities.
I am not here to argue whether animals should or should not be used
in research. Medical research is an invaluable weapon in the battle
against disease. New drugs and surgical techniques offer promise in the
fight against cancer, Alzheimer's, tuberculosis, AIDS, and a host of
other life-threatening diseases. Animal research has been, and
continues to be, fundamental to advancements in medicine. However, I am
concerned with the sale of stolen pets and stray animals to research
facilities and the poor treatment of these animals by some class B
dealers.
My legislation preserves the integrity of animal research by
encouraging research laboratories to obtain animals from legitimate
sources that comply with the AWA. Legitimate sources for animals
include USDA-licensed class A dealers, breeders, and research
facilities, municipal pounds and shelters, and legitimate pet owners
who want to donate their animals to research. These sources are capable
of meeting the demand for research animals. The National Institutes of
Health, in an effort to curb abuse and deception, have already adopted
policies against the acquisition of dogs and cats from class B dealers.
The Pet Safety and Protection Act of 2005 also reduces the USDA's
regulatory burden by allowing the Department to use its resources more
efficiently and effectively. Each year, thousands of dollars are spent
on regulating dealers. To discourage any future violations of the AWA,
my bill increases the penalties to a minimum of $1,000 per violation.
I reiterate that this bill in no way impairs or impedes research but
will end the fraudulent practices of some class B dealers, as well as
the unnecessary suffering of these animals in their care. I urge my
colleagues to support this important legislation.
______
By Mr. CORZINE:
S. 452. A bill to provide for the establishment of national and
global tsunami warning systems and to provide assistance for the relief
and rehabilitation of victims of the Indian Ocean tsunami and for the
reconstruction of tsunami-affected countries; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation,
the Tsunami Early Warning and Relief Act, to significantly decrease
losses in the event of a future tsunami anywhere in the world. This
bill would direct the
[[Page S1671]]
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, to establish and
administer a Global Tsunami Disaster Reduction Program, based on the
successful program which NOAA operates in the Pacific Ocean.
I traveled to South and Southeast Asia in the wake of last year's
Indian Ocean tsunami that led to the death of more than 160,000 people
and a widespread humanitarian crisis. What I witnessed in Indonesia,
Thailand and Sri Lanka was the most incredible destruction I have ever
seen. I can only imagine that the devastation from the tsunami rivals
Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the level of sheer destruction, damage,
displacement and loss of life.
Around the world, and right here in the United States, highly
populated coastal areas are vulnerable to potential devastation on the
scale of the Indian Ocean tsunami. As we continue to assist our South
Asian friends in their reconstruction effort, we must also do
everything in our ability to reduce human, ecological and economic
damage in the event of another tsunami. We cannot allow such a natural
disaster to separate families, orphan children and destroy livelihoods
once again.
There is no magic solution. Coastal areas, by nature, will face
significant damage if a tsunami strikes. However, an advance warning
would go a long way to reduce the loss of life in particular. Had
governments in South Asia been able to inform their citizens of the
approaching tsunami, tourists would not have been tanning on the beach
and coastal markets would not have been obliviously going about their
everyday business. While they would not have been perfect, rudimentary
coastal evacuations could have taken place--and as a result we would
not see the awful human cost that I witnessed this January.
We currently operate an effective warning system in the Pacific
Ocean, which warns our citizens and coastal governments about potential
tsunami threats faced in Hawaii, Alaska and West Coast states. This
system utilizes a sophisticated network of buoys in the Pacific Ocean
that monitor rising and falling water levels. Using this data, and
seismic observation of the ocean floor, NOAA is able to adequately
assess the threat posed to coastal residents by natural activity in the
Pacific and inform emergency service agencies in regions that face
imminent threats.
The Tsunami Early Warning and Relief Act would expand NOAA's
successful Pacific tsunami monitoring and communications program to the
Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, Indian Ocean, and other areas around the
world that are vulnerable to tsunamis. Furthermore, this legislation
expands NOAA's Tsunami Ready Program, which disseminates tsunami
communications to coastal communities and coordinates evacuation
strategies for these regions.
In conclusion, expansion of tsunami warning and readiness programs
are critical to the lives and livelihoods of coastal residents in the
United States and around the world. For all of us, the devastating
aftermath of the Indian Ocean tsunami is a call to action that we must
improve our reflexes when it comes to tsunamis. I urge my colleagues to
consider this legislation, and other tsunami warning systems proposed
by my colleagues, and to move forward as quickly as possible so that we
never again have to see the devastation, death, broken families and
orphaned children that we see right now in South Asia.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Tsunami Early Warning
and Relief Act be a printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 452
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 ``Tsunami Early Warning and
Relief Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) A tremendous undersea earthquake near Sumatra,
Indonesia, created a tsunami whose devastation spread
throughout South Asia, Southeast Asia, and East Africa,
leading to the death of more than 160,000 people on December
26, 2004. As of February 4, 2005, more than 140,000 people
are still missing. The tsunami-affected countries include
Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, Thailand, Maldives, Seychelles,
Bangladesh, Burma, Malaysia, Somalia, Kenya, and Tanzania.
(2) The tsunami resulted in massive destruction affecting
millions of people who now require a great amount of short-
term survival assistance and long-term rehabilitation and
reconstruction assistance.
(3) Compared to past disasters, the Indian Ocean earthquake
and tsunami led to historic destruction of the social service
infrastructure, businesses, and livelihoods. The devastation
caused by the tsunami has resulted in many separated families
and countless unaccompanied and orphaned children.
(4) An effective global tsunami warning system is critical
for preventing future humanitarian disasters and for
protecting national security, since tsunamis occurring
anywhere around the globe could impact the United States at
home and United States national interests abroad.
(5) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has
already built a system of tsunami buoys in the Pacific Ocean
which has been proven to provide critical information and
enhance the Nation's response to tsunamis. The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has the technical
capability to upgrade and expand this system so that it
covers the entire globe and is integrated into larger ocean
observing efforts.
(6) Consistent funding and international cooperation would
be needed to deploy a broader global tsunami warning system.
(7) Effective local emergency management capabilities are
needed to relay tsunami warning information to coastal
communities and their residents.
TITLE I--TSUNAMI WARNING SYSTEMS
SEC. 101. GLOBAL PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Commerce shall
establish a Global Tsunami Disaster Reduction Program within
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for the
establishment of a tsunami warning system to protect
vulnerable areas around the world, including Atlantic Ocean,
Carribean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, Indian Ocean, Mediterranean
Sea, and European areas.
(b) International Cooperation.--The Secretary of State, in
consultation with the Director of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, shall work with foreign countries
that would benefit from the warning system described in
subsection (a), and through international organizations, for
the purposes of--
(1) sharing costs;
(2) sharing relevant data;
(3) sharing technical advice for the implementation of
dissemination and evacuation plans; and
(4) ensuring that the Global Earth Observation System of
Systems program has access to and shares openly all relevant
information worldwide.
SEC. 102. EXPANSION OF UNITED STATES TSUNAMI READY PROGRAM.
The Director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration shall work with coastal communities throughout
the United States to build upon local coastal and ocean
observing capabilities, improve abilities to disseminate
tsunami information and prepare evacuation plans according to
the requirements of the Tsunami Ready program of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and encourage more
communities to participate in the program.
SEC. 103. SEISMIC ACTIVITY MONITORING.
The Director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration shall coordinate with the United States
Geological Survey and the Department of State to work with
other countries to enhance the monitoring, through the Global
Seismic Network (GSN), of seismic activities that could lead
to tsunamis, to support the programs described in sections
101 and 102.
SEC. 104. ANNUAL REPORT.
The Director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration shall transmit an annual report to Congress on
progress in carrying out this title.
SEC. 105. DEFINITION.
For purposes of this title, the term ``United States''
means the several States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands,
and any other commonwealth, territory, or possession of the
United States.
SEC. 106. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of
Commerce for carrying out this title--
(1) $38,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
(2) $32,000,000 for fiscal year 2007 and for each
subsequent fiscal year.
TITLE II--RELIEF, REHABILITATION, AND RECONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE
RELATING TO INDIAN OCEAN TSUNAMI
SEC. 201. ASSISTANCE.
(a) Authorization.--The President, acting through the
Administrator of the United States Agency for International
Development, is authorized to provide assistance for--
(1) the relief and rehabilitation of individuals who are
victims of the Indian Ocean tsunami; and
(2) the reconstruction of the infrastructures of countries
affected by the Indian Ocean tsunami, including Indonesia,
Sri Lanka, India, Thailand, Maldives, Seychelles, Bangladesh,
Burma, Malaysia, Somalia, Kenya, and Tanzania.
(b) Terms and Conditions.--Assistance under this section
may be provided on such
[[Page S1672]]
terms and conditions as the President may determine.
SEC. 202. REPORT.
The President shall transmit to Congress, on a quarterly
basis in 2005, on a biannual basis in 2006, and as determined
to be appropriate by the President thereafter, a report on
progress in carrying out this title.
SEC. 203. DEFINITION.
In this title, the term ``Indian Ocean tsunami'' means the
tsunami that resulted from the earthquake that occurred off
the west coast of northern Sumatra, Indonesia, on December
26, 2004.
SEC. 204. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the President to
carry out this title such sums as may be necessary for fiscal
year 2006 and each subsequent fiscal year.
______
By Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Lugar, Mrs. Clinton, Mr.
Brownback, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Feingold):
S. 453. A bill to amend section 402 of the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 to provide for an
extension of eligibility for supplemental security income through
fiscal year 2008 for refugees, asylees, and certain other humanitarian
immigrants; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by my
colleagues, Senators Kohl, Lugar, Lieberman, Brownback, Clinton,
Lautenberg, and Feingold, to introduce this important piece of
legislation. Legislation that will ensure the United States government
does not turn its back on political asylees or refugees who are the
most vulnerable citizens seeking safety in this great country of ours.
As many of you may know, Congress as part of Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, PRWORA, modified the SSI
program to include a seven-year time limit on the receipt of benefits
for refugees and asylees. This policy was intended to balance the
desire to have people who emigrant to the United States to become
citizens, with an understanding that the naturalization process also
takes time to complete. To allow adequate time for asylees and refugees
to become naturalized citizens Congress provided the 7-year time limit
before the expiration of SSI benefits.
Unfortunately, the naturalization process often takes longer than 7
years because applicants are requited to live in the United States for
a minimum of 5 years prior to applying for citizenship and the INS
often takes 3 or more years to process the application. Because of this
time delay, many individuals are trapped in the system faced with the
loss of their SSI benefits.
If Congress does not act to change the law, reports show that over
the next 4 years nearly 30,000 elderly and disabled refugees and
asylees will lose their Supplemental Security Income, SSI, benefits
because their 7-year time limit will expire before they become
citizens. Many of these individuals are elderly who fled persecution or
torture in their home countries. They include Jews fleeing religious
persecution in the former Soviet Union, Iraqi Kurds fleeing the Saddam
Hussein regime, Cubans and Hmong people from the highlands of Laos who
served on the side of the United States military during the Vietnam
War. They are elderly and unable to work, and have become reliant on
their SSI benefits as their primary income. To penalize them because of
delays encountered through the bureaucratic process seems unjust and
inappropriate.
The administration in its fiscal year 2006 budget acknowledged the
necessity to correct this problem by dedicating funding to extend
refugee eligibility for SSI beyond the 7-year limit. While I am pleased
that they have taken the first step in correcting this problem, I am
concerned the policy does not go far enough. Data shows that most
people will need at least an additional 2 years to navigate and
complete the naturalization process. Therefore, my colleagues and I
have introduced this bill, which will provide a 2-year extension. We
believe this will provide the time necessary to complete the process. .
I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill, and I look
forward to working with Chairman Grassley and other members of the
Finance Committee to secure these changes during consideration of TANF
reauthorization.
Mr. KOHL. I rise today to join Senator Smith and a bipartisan group
of Senators in introducing the SSI Extension for Elderly and Disabled
Refugees Act. This bill builds both on a proposal in the President's
budget, and on legislation we introduced last year, to serve the
neediest individuals in our society.
Wisconsin is the home for hundreds of thousands of Hmong family
members who were resettled there in the years after the Vietnam War,
some as recently as the 1990s. Many of these Hmong fought with the CIA
in Laos during the Vietnam War, providing critical assistance to U.S.
forces. After the fall of Saigon, thousands of Hmong fled Laos and its
communist Pathet Lao government. The United States remains indebted to
these courageous individuals and their families.
In addition to the Hmong, America has served as a shelter for Jews
and Baptists fleeing religious persecution in the former Soviet Union;
and for Iraqis and Cubans escaping tyrannical dictatorships. Our policy
toward refugees and asylees embodies the best of our country--
compassion, opportunity, and freedom. I am proud of the example our
policies set with respect to the treatment of those seeking refuge.
But I am disappointed in our decision to allow these people to enter
the country and then deny them the means to live. Thousands of people
who fled religious and political persecution to seek freedom in the
U.S. are being punished by a short-sighted policy. A provision in the
1996 welfare reform bill restricted the amount of time that elderly and
disabled refugees and asylees could be eligible for Supplemental
Security Income, SSI, benefits. These benefits serve as a basic monthly
income for individuals who are 65 or older, disabled or blind. Over the
next 4 years, it is estimated that 40,000 refugees and political
asylees could lose these important benefits on which they often rely.
The 7-year time limit on SSI benefits for legal humanitarian
immigrants has already impacted individuals and families across the
country, and will impact thousands more without Congressional action.
The provision specifically mandated that to avoid losing this important
support, refugees and asylees must become citizens within the 7 year
limit. Unfortunately, this has proved impossible for far too many. The
process of becoming a citizen only truly begins after a refugee has
resided in the U.S. for 5 years as a lawful permanent resident. And
beyond that, there are many other barriers, such as language skills and
processing and bureaucratic delays within the various agencies, which
an immigrant must overcome before they become naturalized. Beginning in
2003, immigrants trapped in this process--too often the most vulnerable
elderly and families--began to lose their SSI benefits with no hope of
recourse.
This inherent flaw in the system has to be changed. That is why we
are re-introducing the SSI Extension for Disabled and Elderly Refugees
Act. This legislation extends the amount of time that refugees and
asylees have to become citizens to 9 years. In addition, the bill
contains a ``reach back'' provision: it retroactively restores benefits
to those individuals who have already lost them for an additional 2
years. This provision helps the individuals who need it most;
humanitarian immigrants who are trapped in the system and have lost
this important income source.
Across the country, states are recognizing the peril that faces
individuals who lose these benefits. Most recently, in January, the
State of Illinois passed legislation that allows individuals to obtain
monthly grants through a State program, if their Federal SSI benefits
are suspended. This action highlights the need for Congress to act. We
cannot continue to pass the buck to cash-strapped States. I believe we
must act now to protect these individuals.
I cannot stress how important this legislation is to many in the
State of Wisconsin. Last year there were several stories across the
state regarding the plight of Hmong families and individuals whose
citizenship has been delayed and were faced with losing their benefits.
That was a year ago, and Congress failed to pass the legislation that
Senators Smith, Lugar, Feingold and I had worked so hard on. We cannot
let another year go by without helping these individuals.
In addition to the Hmong population in Wisconsin, almost every State
in the
[[Page S1673]]
country is home to immigrants who will be affected by the limit. Our
country has long been a symbol of freedom, equality and opportunity.
Our laws should reflect that. Every day that goes by could result in
the loss of a refugee's support system--I urge my colleagues to support
this legislation and restore the principles we were put here to
protect.
______
By Mr. COLEMAN (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
S. 455. A bill to amend the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange
Act of 1961 to facilitate United States openness to international
students, scholars, scientists, and exchange visitors, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to
reverse the decline in the number of international students studying at
American colleges, universities, and high schools. I am very pleased to
be joined by my friend and colleague, Senator Bingaman, who cares
deeply about these issues as I do.
Policies implemented to keep our country safe in the wake of
September 11 have had the unintended consequence of dramatically
reducing the number of international students studying in the United
States. Total international applications to U.S. graduate schools fell
28 percent from fall 2003 to fall 2004, and 54 percent of all English
as a Second Language (ESL) programs have reported declines in overall
applications at a time where countries such as the U.K., Canada, and
Australia are experiencing increases.
Why is this a concern for our country?
From a foreign policy perspective, America needs all the Ambassadors
of goodwill we can get. In a world that too often hates Americans
because they do not know us, international education represents an
opportunity to break down barriers. It is in our local and national
interest for the best and brightest foreign students to study in
America because these are people who will lead their nations one day.
The experience they gain with our democratic system and our values
gives them a better understanding of what America is and who Americans
are.
My caseworkers in Minnesota have dealt with literally hundreds of
student visas cases. One case in particular stands out--that of
Humphrey Tusimiirwe, a brilliant student from Uganda who was having
difficulty getting his student visa for study at St. Thomas.
Fortunately, after several calls to the U.S. Ambassador, Humphrey's
story ultimately had a happy ending, and he is going to be part of our
panel at the University of Minnesota. But too many other students are
barred from coming to study in America, and far too many are choosing
to not study in the U.S. and instead go elsewhere.
I have heard from Minnesota's colleges and universities. The presence
of international students on campuses gives American students an
irreplaceable opportunity to learn about other cultures and points of
view. That's why this legislation has the endorsement of the University
of Minnesota, the MnSCU student association, the Minneapolis Star
Tribune and Rochester Post Bulletin, and others. International
education is a $13 billion industry, and foreign students who pay full
tuition help keep costs down for American students. In Minnesota alone,
international students contribute some $175 million to our economy.
Finally, I think this is an economic competitiveness issue too.
Attracting the world's top scientific scholars helps to keep our
economy competitive. Too many of the world's best scientists are opting
against studying in the U.S. because of the barriers we have imposed.
We need the world's best and brightest to continue to do their research
here, and to continue to use their talents to improve American
innovation and ultimately create American jobs. Many of America's most
innovative business leaders and top CEOs came to the U.S. as
international students.
At the same time, laws are in place to make sure companies hire
American workers first, and my legislation would not change that.
That's why I will introduce legislation, the COMPETE Act, that will
make sure American students have the math, science, and engineering
skills needed to stay competitive.
While the State Department has made some very important strides, such
as extending the validity of Visas Mantis security clearances and
speeding up their processing time, there are still too many qualified
students unable to get visas to study in America, and too many who
today are deterred from even applying.
That's why I am pleased once again to join with my friend the Senator
from New Mexico in introducing the American Competitiveness Through
International Openness Now (ACTION) Act. Our bill calls for a number of
steps that would help America regain our place as the top destination
for international students, scholars, scientists and exchange visitors.
First, our bill calls for a strategic marketing plan similar to
strategies implemented by the U.K., E.U., Canada and Australia to help
America regain lost ground in attracting the world's best and
brightest. There is a perception around the world that America is no
longer a welcoming place, so we need to be deliberate and smart in our
efforts to change that view.
The bill calls for more realistic standards for visa evaluations by
updating a 50-year old criterion for visa approval and admittance to
the United States. Under the so-called 214(b) rule, young people
currently need to prove that they have ``essential ties'' to their home
countries and no intention of emigrating to the U.S. But in this age of
globalization, it is increasingly difficult for a 20-year old to do
this. Many have lived and studied in other countries, and some have
lost their parents to AIDS. They don't own a house or a business, they
don't have spouses or children. Consular officers treat every student
as an intending immigrant, and it is exceedingly difficult for a
student to prove otherwise.
Our legislation calls for common-sense changes to management of the
SEVIS system, which tracks international students and visitors. Under
this legislation, the database would be run more effectively, and fees
would be collected in a more fair manner.
The bill also sets standards for more timeliness and certainty in the
student visa process, upgrading communication between government
agencies dealing with student visas and enabling them to identify
security risks and clear those who are not a threat more quickly.
I spent time in Minnesota last Friday listening to my constituents'
views about this bill and the positive effect it would have on
Minnesota colleges and universities. The response was overwhelming.
These summits prompted me to add a section to the bill dealing
specifically with students who have to return home for family
emergencies, and a section to help intensive English programs compete
with their counterparts in the U.K. and Australia.
We have often seen that prejudice is bred by isolation. Those who
only look at this country through a keyhole can draw all kinds of
outrageous conclusions. But exposure and interaction bring people
together. Especially in a time when we are burdened with the question,
``Why do they hate us?'' we need to enhance those opportunities for
people to see us as we really are. International exchanges present
precisely this opportunity.
International education brings too much to our campuses, our
communities, our economy and our national security to become another
victim of the age of terrorism. If we can take ACTION to reverse the
decline now, all Americans will reap the benefits for decades to come.
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. 455
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 ``American Competitiveness
Through International Openness Now Act of 2005'' or as the
``ACTION Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The United States has a strategic interest in
encouraging international students, scholars, scientists, and
exchange visitors to visit the United States to study,
collaborate in research, and to develop personal
relationships.
(2) Openness to international students, scholars,
scientists, and exchange visitors serves vital and
longstanding national foreign policy, educational, and
economic interests and the erosion of such openness
undermines the national security interests of the United
States.
(3) Educating successive generations of future world
leaders has long been a foundation of the United States
international influence and leadership.
(4) Open scientific exchange enables the United States to
benefit from the knowledge of the world's top students and
scientists and has been a critical factor in maintaining the
[[Page S1674]]
United States leadership in science and technology.
(5) International students studying in the United States
and their families contribute nearly $13,000,000,000 to the
United States economy each year, making higher education a
major service sector export.
(6) The total number of applications submitted by foreign
applicants to graduate schools in the United States for
enrollment during the fall of 2004 declined 28 percent from
the number of such applications submitted for enrollment
during the fall of 2003.
(7) The total number of foreign students enrolled in
graduate schools in the United States during the fall of 2004
declined 6 percent from the number of such enrollments during
the fall of 2003.
(8) The number of foreign students enrolled in schools in
the United States during the 2003-2004 academic year
decreased by 2.4 percent from the number of such students the
2002-2003 academic year, marking the first absolute decline
in foreign enrollments since the 1971-1972 academic year.
(9) The policies implemented by the United States since
September 11, 2001, and the public perceptions they have
engendered, have discouraged many foreign students from
studying in the United States and have frustrated the efforts
of many foreign scholars and exchange visitors from visiting
the United States.
(10) The United States must improve its student, scholar,
scientist, and exchange visitor screening process to protect
against terrorists seeking to harm the United States.
(11) The United States has seen a dramatic increase in
requests for Visa Mantis checks, checks designed to protect
against illegal transfers of sensitive technology, from
approximately 1,000 in fiscal year 2000 to approximately
18,500 in fiscal year 2004.
(12) Concerns related to the international student
monitoring system known as ``SEVIS'' have also contributed to
the decline in the number of foreign applicants to
educational institutions in the United States.
(13) Other countries have instituted aggressive strategies
for attracting foreign students, scholars, and scientists,
and have adjusted their policies to encourage and accommodate
access to universities and scientific exchange. One such
country, Australia, has increased enrollment by foreign
students in educational institutions in Australia by more
than 53 percent since 2001.
(14) The European Union has set forth a comprehensive
strategy to be the ``most competitive and dynamic knowledge-
based economy in the world'' by 2010. Part of this strategy
is aimed at enhancing economic competitiveness by making the
European Union the most favorable destination for students,
scholars, and researchers from other regions of the world.
(15) In order to maintain United States competitiveness in
the world economy, build vital relationships with future
world leaders, and improve popular perceptions of the United
States overseas, the United States requires a comprehensive
strategy for recruiting foreign students, scholars,
scientists, and exchange visitors.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee
on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on
International Relations of the House of Representatives.
(2) SEVIS.--The term ``SEVIS'' means the program to collect
information relating to nonimmigrant foreign students and
other exchange program participants required by the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(Division C of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-546).
SEC. 4. AMENDMENT TO THE MUTUAL EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1961.
The Mutual Education and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2451 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 115. STRATEGIC PLAN FOR INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL
EXCHANGE.
``(a) Requirement for Plan.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of the ACTION Act of 2005, the President, in
consultation with institutions of higher education in the
United States, organizations that participate in
international exchange programs, and other appropriate
groups, shall develop a strategic plan for enhancing the
access of foreign students, scholars, scientists, and
exchange visitors to the United States for study and exchange
activities.
``(2) Content.--The strategic plan shall include the
following:
``(A) A marketing plan that utilizes the Internet and other
media resources to promote and facilitate study in the United
States by foreign students.
``(B) A clear division of responsibility that eliminates
duplication and promotes inter-agency cooperation with regard
to the roles of the Departments of State, Commerce,
Education, Homeland Security, and Energy in promoting and
facilitating access to the United States for foreign
students, scholars, scientists, and exchange visitors.
``(C) A mechanism for institutionalized coordination of the
efforts of Departments of State, Commerce, Education, and
Homeland Security in facilitating access to the United States
for foreign students, scholars, scientists, and exchange
visitors.
``(D) A plan to utilize the educational advising centers of
the Department of State that are located in foreign countries
to promote study in the United States and to prescreen visa
applicants.
``(E) A description of the lines of authority and
responsibility for foreign students in the Department of
Commerce.
``(F) A description of the mandate related to foreign
student and scholar access to educational institutions in the
United States for the Department of Education.
``(G) Streamlined procedures within the Department of
Homeland Security related to foreign students, scholars,
scientists, and exchange visitors.
``(H) Streamlined procedures to facilitate international
scientific collaboration.
``(3) Submission to congress.--Not later than 180 days
after the date of enactment of the ACTION Act of 2005, the
President shall submit the strategic plan to the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on
International Relations of the House of Representatives.
``(b) Reciprocity Agreements.--It is the sense of Congress
that the United States should negotiate reciprocity
agreements with foreign countries with the goal of mutual
agreement on extending the validity of student and scholar
visas to 4 years and permitting multiple entry on student and
scholar visas.
``(c) Annual Report.--
``(1) Requirement.--The President, acting through the
Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of
Education, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Homeland
Security, and Secretary of Energy, shall submit to Congress
an annual report on the implementation of the strategic plan
required by subsection (a) and on any negotiations with
foreign countries related to the reciprocity agreements
referred to in subsection (b).
``(2) Content.--An annual report submitted under this
subsection shall include a description of the following:
``(A) Measures undertaken to enhance access to the United
States by foreign students, scholars, scientists, and
exchange visitors and to improve inter-agency coordination
with regard to foreign students, scholars, scientists, and
exchange visitors.
``(B) Measures taken to negotiate reciprocal agreements
referred to in subsection (b).
``(C) The number of foreign students, scholars, scientists,
and exchange visitors who applied for visas to enter the
United States, disaggregated by applicants' fields of study
or expertise, the number of such visa applications that are
approved, the number of such visa applications that are
denied, and the reasons for such denials.
``(D) The average processing time for an application for a
visa submitted by a foreign student, scholar, scientist, or
exchange visitor.
``(E) The number of applications for a visa submitted by
foreign students, scholars, scientists, or exchange visitors
that require inter-agency review.
``(F) The number of applications for a visa submitted by
foreign students, scholars, scientists, or exchange visitors
that were approved after receipt of such applications in each
of the following:
``(i) Less than 15 days.
``(ii) Between 15 and 30 days.
``(iii) Between 31 and 45 days.
``(iv) Between 46 and 60 days.
``(v) Between 61 and90 days.
``(vi) More than 90 days.
``(3) Submission of report.--Not later than November 30
2005, and annually thereafter through 2008, the President
shall submit to Congress the report described in this
subsection.''.
SEC. 5. FAIRNESS IN THE SEVIS PROCESS.
(a) Reduced Fee for Short-term Study.--
(1) In general.--Section 641(e)(4)(A) of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(8 U.S.C. 1372(e)(4)(A)) is amended by striking the second
sentence and inserting ``Except as provided in subsection
(g)(2), the fee imposed on any individual may not exceed
$100, except that in the case of an alien admitted under
subparagraph (J) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)) as an au pair, camp
counselor, or participant in a summer work travel program,
the fee shall not exceed $35 and that in the case of an alien
admitted under subparagraph (F) of such section (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)(F)) for a program that will not exceed 90 days,
the fee shall not exceed $35.''.
(2) Technical amendments.--Such section is further
amended--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``Attorney General''
and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security''; and
(B) in the third sentence, by striking ``Attorney
General's'' and inserting ``Secretary's''.
(b) Report on Improving Fee Collection.--Not later than 60
days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State shall jointly
submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report
on the feasibility of--
(1) entering data into the SEVIS database and collecting
the fee required by section 641(e) of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.
1372(e)) only after the applicant's visa has been approved;
or
[[Page S1675]]
(2) refunding the fee required by such section in the event
that the applicant's visa has been denied.
SEC. 6. REFORMING SEVIS DATABASE MANAGEMENT.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security and the
Secretary of State shall--
(1) develop policies that permit authorized representatives
of SEVIS-approved schools or programs to make corrections to
a student, scholar, or exchange visitor's record directly
within the SEVIS database;
(2) in the case of such corrections that cannot be made by
such representatives, ensure that sufficient resources are
made available to enable such corrections to be made in a
timely manner;
(3) develop policies to prohibit the detention or
deportation of a student who is found to be out of status as
a result of a SEVIS database error; and
(4) review the regulations and technology used in the SEVIS
system, in order to streamline processes and reduce the time
required for SEVIS-approved universities and programs to
perform data entry tasks.
(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and
the Secretary of State shall jointly submit to the
appropriate congressional committees a report on the
implementation of this section.
SEC. 7. INTEROPERABLE DATA SYSTEMS.
(a) Responsibilities of the FBI Director.--The Director of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall take the steps
necessary to ensure that the Federal Bureau of Investigation
has full connectivity to the Consular Consolidated Database.
(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation shall report to the Committee on the Judiciary
of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House
of Representatives on the Director's progress in ensuring
that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has full
connectivity to the Consular Consolidated Database.
SEC. 8. FACILITATING ACCESS.
(a) Finding.--Congress finds that improvements in visa
processing would enhance the national security of the United
States by--
(1) permitting closer scrutiny of visa applicants who might
pose threats to national security; and
(2) permitting the timely adjudication of visa applications
of those whose presence in the United States serves important
national interests.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
improvements in visa processing should include--
(1) an operational visa policy that articulates the
national interest of the United States in denying entry to
visitors who seek to harm the United States and in opening
entry to legitimate visitors, to guide consular officers in
achieving the appropriate balance;
(2) a greater focus by the visa system on visitors who
require special screening, while minimizing delays for
legitimate visitors;
(3) a timely, transparent, and predictable visa process,
through appropriate guidelines for inter-agency review of
visa applications; and
(4) a provision of the necessary resources to fund a visa
processing system that meets the requirements of this Act.
(c) Visa Processing.--
(1) In general.--Not withstanding any other provision of
law, not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of State shall issue appropriate
guidance to consular officers in order to--
(A) give consulates appropriate discretion to grant waivers
of personal appearance for foreign students, scholars,
scientists and exchange visitors in order to minimize delays
for legitimate travelers while permitting more thorough
interviews of visa applicants in appropriate cases;
(B) establish a presumption of visa approval for frequent
visitors who have previously been granted visas for the same
purpose and who have no status violations and for people
previously approved for visas who had to depart the United
States for family emergencies; and
(C) give appropriate discretion, according to criteria
developed at each post and approved by the Secretary of
State, to view as ``recreational in nature'' courses of a
duration no more than 1 semester or its equivalent, and not
awarding certification, license or degree, for purposes of
determining appropriateness to visitor status.
(2) Timeliness standards.--Not later than 60 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the President shall publish
final regulations for inter-agency review of visa
applications requiring security clearances which establish
the following standards for timeliness for international
student, scholar, scientist, and exchange visitor visas
that--
(A) establish a 15-day standard for responses to the
Department of State by other agencies involved in the
clearance process;
(B) establish a 30-day standard for completing the entire
inter-agency review and advising the consulate of the result
of the review;
(C) provide for expedited processing of any visa
application with respect to which a review is not completed
within 30 days, and for advising the consulate of the delay
and the estimated processing time remaining; and
(D) establish a special review process to resolve any cases
whose resolution is still pending after 60 days.
(d) Standards for Visa Evaluations.--
(1) In general.--Section 101(a)(15)(F)(i) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)(i))
is amended--
(A) by striking ``having a residence in a foreign country
which he has no intention of abandoning'' and inserting
``having the intention, capability, and sufficient financial
resources to complete a course of study in the United
States''; and
(B) by striking ``and solely'' after ``temporarily''.
(2) Presumption of status.--Section 214(b) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(b)) is amended
by striking ``subparagraph (L) or'' and inserting
``subparagraph (F), (J), (L), or''.
(e) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall report to
appropriate congressional committees on--
(1) the feasibility of expediting visa processing for
participants in official exchange programs, and for students,
scholars, scientists and exchange visitors through
prescreening of applicants by the government or a university
in the country in which the individual resides, a Department
of State educational advising center located in a foreign
country, or other appropriate entity;
(2) the feasibility of developing the capability to collect
biometric data without requiring an applicant for a visa to
appear in person at a United States mission in a foreign
country; and
(3) the implementation of the guidance described in
subsection (b), including the training of consular officers,
and the effect of such guidance and training on visa
processing volume and timeliness.
SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may
be necessary to carry out to carry out this Act, including
for the consular affairs and educational and cultural
exchange functions of the Department of State, the visa
application review and SEVIS database management function of
the Department of Homeland Security, for the Departments of
Education, Commerce, and State to develop an implement a
marketing plan to attract international students, scholars,
scientists, and exchange visitors, and for database
improvements in the Federal Bureau of Investigations as
specified in section 7.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator
Coleman, to introduce the American Competitiveness Through
International Openness Now (``ACTION'') Act of 2005.
A few days ago, I came to the Senate floor to discuss the importance
of the United States taking steps to ensure that we remain the world
leader in terms of scientific research and innovation. There is a
global competition underway for dominance in science and technology,
and I remain concerned that the federal resources we are allocating for
research and development are completely insufficient. At a time when
other countries are investing more in R & D, we are cutting back
Federal support of key science programs. Our Nation's economic
competitiveness depends on reversing this trend.
We must also do all we can to continue to develop a highly skilled
domestic workforce. It is paramount that we improve math and science
education in our school systems, and spend more on graduate education
in science and engineering. Maintaining the world's best education
system is essential for ensuring Americans well-paying jobs and
critical for our economic and national security.
Another area that we must also address in order to ensure U.S.
competitiveness in the world economy is visa processing for scientists,
engineers, and students wishing to come to the United States. Red tape
and delays, although improving, still plague our overseas embassies and
threaten our long-term economic security.
The ACTION Act of 2005 would address this important issue.
A country's immigration system helps determines its relationship to
the global marketplace. The system can either be conducive to the free
flow of ideas, scientists, and international business ventures, or it
can provide disincentives to the flow of international talent and
scientific collaboration.
Since September 11, the United States has adopted a number of visa
policies aimed at making the United States and the traveling public
more secure. Unfortunately, those policies have also had a significant
impact on scientific collaboration with other countries and have made
it problematic for exchange students to come to the United States with
the ease they once enjoyed. While the United States has an obligation
to thoroughly vet visa applicants, we need to find ways to do so that
keep us engaged with the rest of the world and keep our efforts
[[Page S1676]]
focused on those that seek to do us harm.
Our international economic competitors are taking proactive steps to
encourage highly talented students and graduates to come to their
countries and study in their universities. In contrast, the attitude
that the United States seems to be projecting to highly talented
foreign scientists and students is one of complacency. This not only
damages our image abroad, but also hampers research in the nation's
laboratories and universities.
Recent studies from the National Science Foundation and the Council
of Graduate Schools, as well as State Department statistics, have
documented a sharp decline in the foreign students seeking advanced
scientific and technical degrees in graduate schools across the United
States. The National Science Foundation has found that the combination
of an overly restrictive U.S. policy towards issuing visas, the growing
perception that the United States is hostile to foreigners, and the
increase in opportunities overseas has significantly challenged our
ability to attract the best and brightest from around the world to come
to the U.S. to study and engage in open scientific exchange.
The 2003-2004 academic year marked the first absolute decline in
foreign student enrollments since the early 1970's. And in the fall of
2004, international student applications to graduate schools dropped 28
percent from the same time in 2003.
In contrast, other countries have instituted aggressive strategies
for attracting students, scholars, and scientists and have sought to
encourage access to universities and promote scientific collaboration.
One such example is Australia, which has increased international
student enrollment 53 percent since 2001. The European Union has also
set forth a comprehensive strategy to be the ``most competitive and
dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world'' by 2010. A key part of
this strategy is aimed at making the E.U. the most favorable
destination for students, scholars, and researchers from around the
world.
Our university system is the envy of the world, and where we have a
long-standing record of producing the best trained and most innovative
scientists and engineers, and we must not concede our leadership in
this area.
It is also important to note that international students play an
important economic role--the Institute of International Education
recently determined that through tuition and living expenses, foreign
students contribute roughly $13 billion to the U.S. economy.
In particular, the ACTION Act of 2005 would help keep international
students and scientist coming to the United States to participate in
essential research and exchange programs by: improving visa processing
in a manner consistent with national security; requiring the President
to develop a strategic plan to enhance the recruitment and access of
students, scholars, and scientist coming to the United States;
reforming the SEVIS system, which tracks students, to allow approved
schools to make corrections to a student's record to correct database
errors; and by facilitating that the FBI and the State Department
develop interoperable data systems.
Openness to international students and scientist is an important
aspect of maintaining American competitiveness in the world economy,
and I ask my fellow colleagues to join me in supporting this essential
bill.
______
By Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Chafee, Mr.
Rockefeller, and Ms. Collins):
S. 456. A bill to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security Act
to permit a State to receive credit towards the work requirements under
the temporary assistance for needy families program for recipients who
are determined by appropriate agencies working in coordination to have
a disability and to be in need of specialized activities; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pathways to
Independence Act of 2005, along with Senators Jeffords, Chafee,
Rockefeller, and Collins. This bill includes two important provisions
that we will work to include in TANF reauthorization. These provisions
will help States work with TANF recipients who have disabilities to
transition them into work.
In July 2002, the General Accounting Office reported that as many as
44 percent of TANF families have a parent or child with a physical or
mental impairment. This is almost three times as high as among the non-
TANF population in the United States. In eight percent of TANF
families, there is both a parent and a child with a disability; among
non-TANF families, this figure is one percent. The GAO's work confirmed
the findings of earlier studies, including work by the Urban Institute
and the HHS Inspector General.
These figures mean that we need to make sure that TANF
reauthorization legislation gives States the ability and incentives to
help families meet their current needs, while also helping them to move
from welfare to work. This is the lesson that Oregon and many other
States have already learned as they developed and refined their TANF
programs.
The first provision of my bill provides a pragmatic approach to
helping parents with disabilities and substance abuse problems receive
the treatment and other rehabilitative services they will need to
succeed in a work setting. It is designed so that, over time, States
can gradually increase the work activity requirements, while continuing
to provide clients with rehabilitative services. Under this proposal,
much like in other proposals under consideration, a person
participating in rehabilitation can be counted as engaged in work
activity for three months. After the first three months, if a person
continues to need rehabilitative services, the State can continue to
count participation in those activities for another three months, so
long as that person is engaged in some number of work hours, to be
determined by the State.
The next step of my proposal builds on the concept of partial credit
that is being considered in the Senate Finance Committee. If, after six
months, a State determines that a person has a continuing need for
rehabilitative services, the State may create a package that combines
work activity with these services. The State will receive credit for
the individual's efforts so long as at least one-half of the hours in
which the individual participates are in core work activities. For
example, if a State receives full credit for a person who works 30
hours per week, and the State has determined that an individual needs
rehabilitative services beyond six months, that individual would need
to be engaged in core work activities for at least 15 hours per week to
get full credit, with the remaining 15 hours spent in rehabilitative
services. Similarly, if partial credit is available for a person who
works 24 hours per week, then a State could receive that same
partial credit if the person was engaged in core work activities for at
least 12 hours per week, with the remaining 12 hours spent in
rehabilitative services.
This approach is appealing for many reasons. First, it allows states
to design a system in which a person can move progressively over time
from rehabilitation toward work. Second, it gives states credit for the
time and effort they will need to invest to help people move
successfully from welfare to work by allowing States to use a range of
strategies to help these families. Third, it creates a more realistic
structure for individuals with disabilities and addictions who may
otherwise fall out of the system either through sanction or
discouragement, despite their need for financial support. Finally, this
approach is appealing because it is designed to work within the
structure of the final TANF reauthorization bill.
I look forward to working with my co-sponsors, Senators Jeffords,
Chafee, Rockefeller, and Collins, and with the Chairman of the Finance
Committee on these important provisions in the upcoming months, and I
urge my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation.
I also wish to thank all of the organizations that have expressed
support for this bill. I have received support letters from those
organizations, and I ask unanimous consent that those letters be
printed in the Record
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the
Record.
[[Page S1677]]
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Consortium for Citizens
With Disabilities,
February 17, 2005.
Hon. Gordon Smith,
Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Susan M. Collins,
Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV,
Senate.
Washington, DC.
Hon. James M. Jeffords,
Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Lincoln D. Chafee,
Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Smith, Jeffords, Collins, Chafee, and
Rockefeller: We are writing to thank you for introducing
legislation that addresses a key problem facing TANF families
with a parent with a disability. We believe that this
provision, if included in the larger TANF reauthorization
bill, will significantly improve the ability of states to
help families successfully move from welfare toward work
while also ensuring that the needs of family members with
disabilities are met. We enthusiastically support this
legislation.
Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) is a
coalition of national consumer, advocacy, provider and
professional organizations headquartered in Washington, DC.
We work together to advocate for national public policy that
ensures the self determination, independence, empowerment,
integration and inclusion of children and adults with
disabilities in all aspects of society. The CCD TANF Task
Force seeks to ensure that families that include persons with
disabilities are afforded equal opportunities and appropriate
accommodations under the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) block grant.
The research is clear that many TANF families include a
parent or a child with a disability, and in some families,
there is both a child and a parent with a disability. The
numbers are high--GAO has found that as many as 44 percent of
TANF families have a child or a parent with a disability--and
need to be addressed in the policy choices that Congress
makes in TANF reauthorization. We believe that, by designing
policies that take into account the needs of families with
a member with a disability, Congress can help the states
move greater numbers of these families off of welfare and
toward greater independence. Without reasonable supports,
however, and through no fault of their own, these families
sometimes fail at work activity and are often subject to
inappropriate sanctioning and the crises that flow from
abrupt--and often prolonged--loss of income.
Your bill would provide low-income families with members
with disabilities real opportunities to achieve self-
sufficiency. Under current law, states have the flexibility--
either through a waiver such as Oregon has or as a result of
the caseload reduction credit--to ensure that a parent with a
disability, including a substance abuse problem, receives the
rehabilitative services she needs in order to move towards
work. In recent years, increasing numbers of states have used
this flexibility as they realized that some parents would
need more specialized help if they were going to successfully
leave TANF. Some of the current reauthorization proposals,
however, limit states to counting three or six months of
rehabilitative services as work activity. Such short limits
on rehabilitative services would be inadequate to help many
families with members with disabilities find and sustain
employment, and, in light of proposed increases in state
participation rates, would discourage states from designing
programs and requirements that work for people with the most
severe barriers.
Your bill will allow states to count rehabilitative
services as work activity beyond six months as long as the
state TANF agency works collaboratively with other public or
private agencies in determining disability and the services
that will be provided and the rehabilitative services are
mixed with significant work activity. We believe this mix of
work activities and supports will help an individual with
severe barriers move toward greater independence. The
provision would allow states to count individuals
participating in rehabilitative services after six months as
long as at least one-half of the hours in which the
individual participates are in core work activities. This
will allow states to create a progression of work activity
hours combined with rehabilitative services over time that
will assist in moving the family from welfare to work at a
pace that is designed to lead to success for that family.
CCD is not asking Congress to exempt individuals with
disabilities from participation in the TANF program. On the
contrary, we are looking for the essential assistance and
supports that will help families move off of welfare toward
greater independence. Your bill does not create any
exemptions from participation requirements, and in fact,
provides the necessary assistance and supports that can come
with participation in the TANF program. Under the bill,
states would have to engage the same number of recipients in
welfare-to-work activities as under the standard set in a new
reauthorization law. The provision simply allows states to
utilize a broader range of activities to help recipients with
barriers move to work. In short, this is a way to make the
TANF program work for parents with disabilities and substance
abuse problems. The provision would give states credit when
recipients with barriers are engaged in activities and, thus,
will encourage states to assist families with barriers to
progress toward work in a manner and at a pace that is more
tailored to their needs and disabilities.
Thank you again for introducing this legislation and your
leadership on this very important issue. We look forward to
working with you and your staffs to ensure that this
provision becomes law.
Sincerely,
American Music Therapy Association
American Network of Community Options and Resources
APSE: The Network on Employment
Association of University Centers on Disability
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law
Brain Injury Association of America
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Council for Exceptional Children
Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation
County Welfare Directors Association of California
Easter Seals
Epilepsy Foundation
Goodwill Industries International
National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems
National Association of Research and Training Centers
National Association of Social Workers
National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors
National Association of State Head Injury Administrators
National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty
National Mental Health Association
National Rehabilitation Association
National Respite Coalition
NISH
Paralyzed Veterans of America
The Arc of the United States
United Cerebral Palsy
____
February 17, 2005.
Hon. Gordon Smith,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Susan M. Collins,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. James M. Jeffords,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Lincoln D. Chafee,
U.S. Senate Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Smith, Jeffords, Rockefeller, Collins, and
Chafee: Thank you for introducing the ``Pathways to
Independence Act of 2005.'' The provision included in this
bill, if included in the TANF reauthorization legislation,
will improve the ability of states to help TANF recipients
with disabilities, including substance abuse problems, to
move towards work and greater independence.
Your bill improves on provisions in the Personal
Responsibility and Individual Development for Everyone
(PRIDE) Act, which passed the Senate Finance Committee in the
last Congress and has now been introduced as part of S. 6.
The current Senate version of the PRIDE Act allows states to
count rehabilitative services towards the work participation
rate for up to six months, as long as some core work activity
is combined with the rehabilitative services in the second
three-month period. The Smith-Jeffords bill builds on this
and would allow states to count participation in
rehabilitative activities beyond six months, so long as the
individual participates in at least one-half the required
core work activity hours. The bill also would encourage
states to work collaboratively with other agencies that have
expertise in identifying disabilities and developing
appropriate service plans to address those disabilities.
The encouragement of collaboration is a critical component
of the bill. It is our experience that many states have used
the flexibility of current law to begin developing such
collaborative approaches to working with families who face
multiple barriers to employment and independence. However, we
are concerned that the increased participation rate
requirement contemplated in TANF reauthorization proposals
will discourage states from continuing such collaborative
approaches to helping families progress on the pathway to
independence. Unless states are provided more flexibility in
determining what activities count towards the participation
rate, we fear states that are already providing critical
services will no longer be able to provide them.
For example, last year, the Vermont Vocational
Rehabilitation Agency, working in conjunction with the
state's TANF agency, reported that it had recently assisted
109 recipients with disabilities in achieving successful
employment (defined as stable employment for 90 days). Only
14 of the 109 TANF recipients with disabilities (or 12.8
percent) achieved stable employment in six months or less.
Without flexibility to go beyond six months in providing
rehabilitative services to people with disabilities, as
provided by the Smith-Jeffords bill, Vermont would have
risked penalties by offering rehabilitative services beyond
six months and 95
[[Page S1678]]
of the 109 TANF recipients with disabilities would have been
unlikely to receive the services they needed to become
successfully employed.
Similarly, drug and alcohol treatment programs that serve
women with children, including women receiving TANF
assistance, generally require more than six months of
services. Indeed, 54 percent of these family-based treatment
programs extend beyond six months and demonstrate successful
outcomes of upwards of 60 percent of parents achieving
lasting sobriety and family stabilization. Family-based
treatment programs combine job training, parenting classes,
education, and life skills training in their substance abuse
treatment plans. These programs also include employment as an
essential aspect of the treatment plan, when a particular
individual is ready to engage in work. Allowing individuals
time to complete treatment is critical. An Oregon study
showed that those who completed drug treatment received wages
65 percent higher than those who did not. Nationally, SAMHSA
research demonstrates that the longer parents stay in
substance abuse treatment programs the more likely they are
to succeed: of parents who stayed in treatment for more than
six months, 71 percent achieved sustained recovery after
completing treatment as well as six months post-discharge.
The goal should be to help parents with disabilities,
including substance abuse problems, obtain whatever help they
need--for however long they need, as determined by the state
and local agencies working together--to help them
successfully move from welfare to work. Allowing states to
receive credit for only a limited number of months of
rehabilitative services will mean that some parents do not
get the intensive help they need to succeed.
We are also quite concerned that many of the families who
are unable to obtain the services they need will end up in
the child welfare system. It is the most disadvantaged
families, those with barriers such as mental or physical
disabilities or problems with substance abuse, who are at
greatest risk of making the transition into the child welfare
system.
Thus, neither families nor states can afford an inflexible
and ineffective approach to addressing barriers in the TANF
program. States must be permitted to count participation in
activities that help parents with disabilities successfully
participate in the workplace and care for their children, for
as long as those activities are needed to help the family
progress towards greater independence. We believe that your
bill provides this needed flexibility and will encourage
state agencies to work collaboratively in assisting these
families. Thank you again for introducing this legislation.
Sincerely,
Alliance for Children and Families
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
American Association of People with Disabilities
American Association on Health and Disability
American Counseling Association
American Dance Therapy Association
American Federation of Teachers
American Humane Association
American Music Therapy Association
American Network of Community Options and Resources
APSE: The Network on Employment
American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children
American Psychological Association
Association of University Centers on Disability
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law
Black Administrators in Child Welfare Inc.
Brain Injury Association of America
Center for Law and Social Policy
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Child Welfare League of America
Children Awaiting Parents
Children's Defense Fund
Children's Healthcare Is a Legal Duty
Coalition on Human Needs
Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America
Council for Exceptional Children
Council of Learning Disabilities
Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation
Easter Seals
Epilepsy Foundation
Episcopal Community Services
Goodwill Industries International
Helen Keller National Center
Legal Action Center
Legal Momentum
Lutheran Services in America
National Alliance of Children's Trust and Prevention Funds
National Alliance to End Home1essness
National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems
National Association of Research and Training Centers
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of Social Workers
National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors
National Association of State Head Injury Administrators
National Association for Children of Alcoholics
National Association for Children's Behavioral Health
National Child Abuse Coalition
National Coalition on Deaf-Blindness
National Council of La Raza
National Council on Alcoholism & Drug Dependence
National Education Association
National Indian Child Welfare Association
National Law center on Homelessness and Poverty
National Mental Health Association
National Rehabilitation Association
National Respite Coalition
NISH
Paralyzed Veterans of America
Protestants for the Common Good
Research Institute for Independent Living
School Social Work Association of America
The Arc of the United States
Therapeutic Communities of America
United Cerebral Palsy
Union for Reform Judaism
Voices for America's Children
Women of Reform Judaism
YWCA USA
____
S. 456
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 ``Pathways to Independence Act
of 2005''.
SEC. 2. STATE OPTION TO RECEIVE CREDIT FOR RECIPIENTS WHO ARE
DETERMINED BY APPROPRIATE AGENCIES WORKING IN
COORDINATION TO HAVE A DISABILITY AND TO BE IN
NEED OF SPECIALIZED ACTIVITIES.
(a) In General.--Section 407(c)(2) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 607(c)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(E) State option to receive credit for recipients who are
determined by appropriate agencies working in coordination to
have a disability and to be in need of specialized
activities.--
``(i) Initial 3-month period.--At the option of the State,
if the State agency responsible for administering the State
program funded under this part determines that an individual
described in clause (iv) is not able to meet the State's full
work requirements, but is engaged in activities prescribed by
the State, the State may deem the individual as being engaged
in work for purposes of determining monthly participation
rates under paragraphs (1)(B)(i) and (2)(B) of subsection (b)
for not more than 3 months in any 24-month period.
``(ii) Additional 3-month period.--A State may extend the
3-month period under clause (i) for an additional 3 months
only if, during such additional 3-month period, the
individual engages in rehabilitative services prescribed by
the State and a work activity described in subsection (d) for
such number of hours per month as the State determines
appropriate.
``(iii) Rules for credit in succeeding months.--
``(I) In general.-- If the State agency responsible for
administering the State program funded under this part works
in collaboration or has a referral relationship with other
governmental or private agencies with expertise in disability
determinations or appropriate services plans for adults with
disabilities (including agencies that receive funds under
this part) and one of these entities determines that an
individual treated as being engaged in work under clauses (i)
and (ii) continues to be unable to meet the State's full work
requirements because of the individual's disability and
continuing need for rehabilitative services after the
conclusion of the periods applicable under such clauses, then
for purposes of determining monthly participation rates under
paragraphs (1)(B)(i) and (2)(B) of subsection (b), the State
may receive credit in accordance with subclause (II) for
certain activities undertaken with respect to the individual.
``(II) Credit for activities undertaken through
collaborative agency process.--Subject to subclause (III), if
the State undertakes to provide services for an individual to
which subclause (I) applies through a collaborative process
that includes governmental or private agencies with expertise
in disability determinations or appropriate services for
adults with disabilities, the State shall be credited for
purposes of the monthly participation rates determined under
paragraphs (1)(B)(i) and (2)(B) of subsection (b) with the
lesser of--
``(aa) the sum of the number of hours the individual
participates in an activity described in paragraph (1), (2),
(3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), or (12) of subsection (d) for
the month and the number of hours that the individual
participates in rehabilitation services under this clause for
the month; or
``(bb) twice the number of hours the individual
participates in an activity described in paragraph (1), (2),
(3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), or (12) of subsection (d) for
the month.
``(III) Limitation.--A State shall not receive credit under
this clause towards the monthly participation rates under
paragraphs (1)(B)(i) and (2)(B) of subsection (b) unless the
State reviews the disability determination of an individual
to which subclause (I) applies and the activities in which
the individual is participating not less than every 6 months.
``(iv) Individual described.--For purposes of this
subparagraph, an individual described in this clause is an
individual who the State has determined has a disability,
including a substance abuse problem, and would benefit from
participating in rehabilitative services while combining such
participation with other work activities.
``(v) Definition of disability.--In this subparagraph, the
term `disability' means a
[[Page S1679]]
physical or mental impairment, including substance abuse,
that--
``(I) constitutes or results in a substantial impediment to
employment; or
``(II) substantially limits 1 or more major life
activities.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
takes effect on October 1, 2005.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it is a pleasure for me to introduce
today, along with my colleagues Senators Smith, Collins, Chafee, and
Rockefeller, the ``Pathways to Independence Act of 2005.'' This
legislation is the product of a bipartisan effort to ensure that those
individuals in our welfare system who face the toughest barriers to
work, such as individuals with disabilities or substance abuse
problems, are provided the best opportunity for future success and
productivity. This legislation gives states the tools and incentives
necessary to assist them in moving individuals from welfare to work.
The current welfare system has been widely regarded as a success in
moving individuals off the welfare rolls, and states have been given
incentives to do so. While this approach has been regarded as
successful, it has one major flaw. Although the states are provided
incentives for removing people from the welfare rolls, no incentives
exist for placing individuals into sustainable employment. States
receive the same credit for moving a welfare recipient into a high
paying job as they do for sanctioning that person outright. This
perverse incentive has been particularly difficult for the many welfare
recipients who have disabilities or struggle with substance abuse
problems. In many states it is easier to write these people off than to
give them the support necessary to become truly independent.
In Vermont, approximately 15 percent of the welfare caseload has been
diagnosed with a disability and receive services through the Vermont
Department of Vocational Rehabilitation. Vermont's effort to provide
these services enables welfare recipients to, move from welfare to
work. However, these services are not included in the core work
activities allowed under the current welfare law. Vermont receives no
credit or incentive for moving these individuals to independence. This
policy is wrong. If we truly want welfare to be an initiative that
helps people to become independent and self-sufficient, then our
policies must reflect our intentions. That is where ``The Pathways to
Independence Act of 2005'' comes into play.
The ``Pathways to Independence Act of 2005'' would allow states to
count certain rehabilitation services for individuals with disabilities
and treatment for substance abuse toward work activities. Here's how it
works: the legislation would give states the ability to count a welfare
recipient who is engaged in work, or work preparation activities, to
participate in a drug treatment program for three months. At the end of
this 3-month period, the state would be given the opportunity to re-
evaluate the status of the individual and decide whether to continue
treatment for an additional 3 months. This is the same process that is
envisioned in the ``Personal Responsibility and Individual Development
for Everyone (PRIDE) Act'' that the Finance Committee is planning to
consider this spring. The PRIDE approach would then require an
individual with a severe barrier to meet the same standard as a non-
disabled individual. However, the ``Pathways to Independence Act''
would allow the state to continue treatment for the individual,
provided that the individual is meeting at least half of the regular
work requirements and following their treatment program for the
remaining hours.
This is a common sense proposal. It is consistent with the research
on providing effective support programs for people with disabilities
and effective treatment programs for people struggling with substance
abuse leading to sustainable employment. By allowing states to count
these individuals in the ``working'' category, we provide the states
with the necessary incentives to engage those most difficult to serve
in meaningful ways that will help them to work. It will allow the
states to place people with disabilities and substance abuse problems
on a pathway to independence.
The ``Pathways to Independence Act of 2005'' would supply the states
with the tools and incentives necessary to provide welfare recipients
with the greatest chance for independence and self-sufficiency. If we
truly want to take the necessary steps towards achieving this goal and
improving upon our current welfare system, this legislation must be
part of any welfare reform reauthorization that is enacted.
I would like to thank the members of the Consortium for Citizens with
Disabilities for their help in developing this legislation and their
strong letter in support of this initiative. I especially want to thank
my colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith, for his commitment to this
legislation and all of our cosponsors in this endeavor.
____________________