[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 28 (Thursday, March 10, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2484-S2496]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Kyl):
  S. 588. A bill to amend the National Trails System Act to direct the 
Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to jointly 
conduct a study on the feasibility of designating the Arizona Trail as 
a national scenic trail or a national historic trail; to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator 
Kyl in introducing the Arizona Trail Feasibility Study Act. This bill 
would authorize the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to conduct 
a joint study to determine the feasibility of designating the Arizona 
Trail as a National Scenic or National Historic Trail. A companion bill 
is being introduced today in the House of Representatives by 
Representative Kolbe and rest of the Arizona delegation.
  Since 1968, when the National Trails System Act was established, 
Congress has designated 20 national trails. This legislation is the 
first step in the process of national trail designation for the Arizona 
Trail. If the study concludes that designating the Arizona Trail as a 
part of the national trail system if feasible, subsequent legislation 
can be introduced to designate the Arizona Trail as either a National 
Scenic Trail or National Historic Trail.
  The Arizona Trail is a beautifully diverse stretch of public lands, 
mountains, canyons, deserts, forests, historic sites, and communities. 
The Trail begins at the Coronado National Memorial on the U.S.-Mexico 
border and ends in the Bureau of Land Management's Arizona Strip 
District on the Utah border. In between these two points, the Trail 
winds through some of the most rugged, spectacular scenery in the 
Western United States.
  For the past 10 years, over 16 Federal, State, and local agencies, as 
well as community and business organizations, have worked to form a 
partnership to create, develop, and manage the Arizona Trail. 
Designating the Arizona Trail as a national trail would help streamline 
the management of the Trail to ensure that this pristine stretch of 
diverse land is preserved for future generations to enjoy.
  The corridor for the Arizona Trail encompasses the wide range of 
ecological diversity in the State, and incorporates a host of existing 
trails into one continuous trail. The Arizona Trail extends through 
seven ecological life zones including such legendary landmarks as the 
Sonoran Desert and the Grand Canyon. It connects the unique lowland 
desert flora and fauna in Saguaro National Park and the pine-covered 
San Francisco Peaks, Arizona's highest mountains at 12,633 feet in 
elevation. In fact, the Trail route is so topographically diverse that 
a person can hike from the Sonoran Desert to Alpine forests in one day. 
The Trail also takes travelers through ranching, mining, agricultural, 
and developed urban areas, as well as remote and pristine wildlands.
  With over 700 miles of the 800-mile trail already completed, the 
Arizona

[[Page S2485]]

Trail is a boon to recreationists. The Arizona State Parks recently 
released data showing that two-thirds of Arizonans consider themselves 
trail users. Millions of visitors also use Arizona's trails each year. 
In one of the fastest-growing states in the U.S., the designation of 
the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic or National Historic Trail would 
ensure the preservation of a corridor of open space for hikers, 
mountain bicyclists, cross-country skiers, snowshoers, eco-tourists, 
equestrians, and joggers.
  I commend the Arizona Trail Association for taking the lead in 
building a coalition of partners to bring the Arizona Trail from its 
inception to a nearly completed, multiple-use, non-motorized, long-
distance trail. Trail enthusiasts look forward to the completion of the 
Arizona Trail. Its designation as a national trail would help to 
protect the natural, cultural, and historic resources it contains for 
the public to use and enjoy.
  I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senator 
McCain in introducing the Arizona Trail Feasibility Study Act. This 
bill would authorize the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to 
conduct a joint study to determine the feasibility and desirability of 
designating the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic or Historic Trail. A 
companion bill is being introduced today in the House of 
Representatives by Representative Kolbe on behalf of the entire Arizona 
delegation.
  In 1968, Congress established the National Trails System to promote 
the preservation of historical resources and outdoor areas. National 
scenic and national historic trails may be designated only by an act of 
Congress. The first step toward national trail designation is the 
feasibility study process, which this legislation authorizes. When a 
study recommends a trail for designation, subsequent legislation will 
be introduced to bring it into the National Trails System.
  The Arizona Trail is highly deserving of consideration for national 
designation. The trail is a roller coaster ride through the wide range 
of ecological diversity in the State. The Trail corridor begins at the 
Coronado National Memorial on the U.S. Mexico Border, and winds some 
800 miles, ending on the Bureau of Land Management's Arizona Strip 
District on the Utah Border. As it connects these two points, it 
invites recreationists to explore the State's most renowned mountains, 
canyons, deserts and forests, including the Grand Canyon and the Sonora 
Desert. This trail is unique in that it was developed to maximize the 
incorporation of already existing public trails into one continuous 
trail, to showcase some of the most spectacular scenery in the West.
  The trail is a partnership of over 16 Federal, State and local 
agencies, as well as numerous community and business organizations and 
countless volunteers, to develop and sustain it as a recreational 
resource for future generations. Authorizing this study and ultimately 
designating the Arizona Trail as a national trail will help streamline 
its management, boost tourism and recreation, and preserve a 
magnificent natural, cultural, and historical experience of the 
American West.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 589. A bill to establish the Commission on Freedom of Information 
Act Processing Delays; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on February 16, shortly before the 
President's Day recess in February, the Senator from Vermont and I 
introduced the OPEN Government Act of 2005--bipartisan legislation to 
promote accountability, accessibility, and openness in government, 
principally by strengthening and enhancing the Federal law commonly 
known as the Freedom of Information Act.
  When I served as Attorney General of Texas, it was my responsibility 
to enforce Texas's open government laws. I am pleased to report that 
Texas is known for having one of the strongest set of open government 
laws in our Nation. And ever since that experience, I have long 
believed that our federal government could use ``a little Texas 
sunshine.'' I am thus especially enthusiastic about the OPEN Government 
Act, because that legislation attempts to incorporate some of the most 
important principles and elements of Texas law into the federal Freedom 
of Information Act.
  Today, I am pleased to join the Senator from Vermont again, to 
commence another bipartisan effort to reinforce our national commitment 
to freedom of information and openness in government. Indeed, this is 
an especially appropriate time to promote this important cause, because 
starting this Sunday, America will observe the first-ever national 
Sunshine Week--a celebration of our nation's founding principles and 
commitment to freedom of information and openness in government. It is 
also long past due. It has been nearly a decade since Congress has 
approved major reforms to the Freedom of Information Act. Moreover, a 
Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing that the Senator from Vermont and 
I will lead next Tuesday morning to examine our open government laws 
will be the first such hearing since 1992.
  The Faster FOIA Act of 2005 would establish an advisory Commission on 
Freedom of Information Act Processing Delays. The Commission would be 
charged with reporting to Congress and the President its 
recommendations for steps that should be taken to reduce delays in the 
administration of the Freedom of Information Act.
  The Commission would be comprised of 16 members. Twelve of them would 
be appointed by members of Congress--three by the chairman of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee, three by the chairman of the House 
Government Reform Committee, and three each by the ranking minority 
member of the two committees. These four members of Congress would each 
be required to appoint at least one member to the Commission with 
experience submitting FOIA requests on behalf of nonprofit research or 
educational organizations or news media organizations, and at least one 
member with experience in academic research in the fields of library 
science, information management, or public access to Government 
information. The remaining four positions on the Commission would be 
held by designees of the Attorney General, the Director of the Office 
of Management and Budget, the Archivist of the United States, and the 
Comptroller General.

  The Commission would be responsible for producing a study to identify 
methods to reduce delays in the processing of FOIA requests and to 
ensure the efficient and equitable administration of FOIA throughout 
the Federal Government. The Commission would also be charged with 
examining whether the system for charging fees and granting fee waivers 
under FOIA should be reformed in order to reduce delays in processing 
fee requests. The report would be due no later than one year after the 
date of enactment of this Act, and would include recommendations for 
legislative and administrative action to enhance FOIA performance. The 
Commission would expire thirty days after the submission of the report.
  The Faster FOIA Act is important legislation to strengthen openness 
in our Federal Government, and I am pleased to join with the Senator 
from Vermont once again in furtherance of this cause.
  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. 589

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

     SECTION 1. COMMISSION ON FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 
                   PROCESSING DELAYS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Faster 
     FOIA Act of 2005''.
       (b) Establishment.--There is established the Commission on 
     Freedom of Information Act Processing Delays (in this Act 
     referred to as the ``Commission'') for the purpose of 
     conducting a study relating to methods to help reduce delays 
     in processing requests submitted to Federal agencies under 
     section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred 
     to as the ``Freedom of Information Act'').
       (c) Membership.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall be composed of 16 
     members of whom--
       (A) 3 shall be appointed by the chairman of the Committee 
     on the Judiciary of the Senate;

[[Page S2486]]

       (B) 3 shall be appointed by the ranking member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;
       (C) 3 shall be appointed by the chairman of the Committee 
     on Government Reform of the House of Representatives;
       (D) 3 shall be appointed by the ranking member of the 
     Committee on Government Reform of the House of 
     Representatives;
       (E) 1 shall be appointed by the Attorney General of the 
     United States;
       (F) 1 shall be appointed by the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget;
       (G) 1 shall be appointed by the Archivist of the United 
     States; and
       (H) 1 shall be appointed by the Comptroller General of the 
     United States.
       (2) Qualifications of congressional appointees.--Of the 3 
     appointees under each of subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D) 
     of paragraph (1)--
       (A) at least 1 shall have experience in submitting requests 
     under section 552 of title 5, United States Code, to Federal 
     agencies, such as on behalf of nonprofit research or 
     educational organizations or news media organizations; and
       (B) at least 1 shall have experience in academic research 
     in the fields of library science, information management, or 
     public access to Government information.
       (d) Study.--The Commission shall conduct a study to--
       (1) identify methods that--
       (A) will help reduce delays in the processing of requests 
     submitted to Federal agencies under section 552 of title 5, 
     United States Code; and
       (B) ensure the efficient and equitable administration of 
     that section throughout the Federal Government; and
       (2) examine whether the system for charging fees and 
     granting waivers of fees under section 552 of title 5, United 
     States Code, needs to be reformed in order to reduce delays 
     in processing requests.
       (e) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit a report 
     to Congress and the President containing the results of the 
     study under this section, which shall include--
       (1) a description of the methods identified by the study;
       (2) the conclusions and recommendations of the Commission 
     regarding--
       (A) each method identified; and
       (B) the charging of fees and granting of waivers of fees; 
     and
       (3) recommendations for legislative or administrative 
     actions to implement the conclusions of the Commission.
       (f) Staff and Administrative Support Services.--The 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall provide to the 
     Commission such staff and administrative support services, 
     including research assistance at the request of the 
     Commission, as necessary for the Commission to perform its 
     functions efficiently and in accordance with this section.
       (g) Information.--To the extent permitted by law, the heads 
     of executive agencies, the Government Accountability Office, 
     and the Congressional Research Service shall provide to the 
     Commission such information as the Commission may require to 
     carry out its functions.
       (h) Compensation of Members.--Members of the Commission 
     shall serve without compensation for services performed for 
     the Commission.
       (i) Travel Expenses.--The members of the Commission shall 
     be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of services for the Commission.
       (j) Applicability of Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The 
     Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall apply to 
     the Commission.
       (k) Termination.--The Commission shall terminate 30 days 
     after the submission of the report under subsection (e).

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from 
Texas, Senator John Cornyn, in introducing what is our second 
cooperative action in this Congress to improve the implementation of 
the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA. This bill, called the ``Faster 
FOIA Act of 2005,'' responds to commonly voiced concerns of FOIA 
requestors over agency delay in processing requests.
  I want to express my appreciation to all of the FOIA officers and 
other Federal employees who work hard to process FOIA requests quickly 
and efficiently. I know that many simple requests are filled within a 
few days, and I understand that complex requests dealing with national 
security issues can take time for declassification, redaction, or 
release, as appropriate.
  There are, nonetheless, significant delays at many agencies. In 2003, 
a non-governmental organization, the National Security Archive, looked 
into just how long some FOIA requests are left unfulfilled. The group 
found that the oldest requests dated back to the late 1980s, before the 
collapse of the Soviet Union. The oldest of these was a request to the 
FBI for information on the Bureau's activities at the University of 
California. First filed in November 1987, this request was partially 
fulfilled in 1996 after extensive litigation. According to the National 
Security Archive, the documents that were released revealed ``unlawful 
FBI intelligence activities and the efforts to cover up such conduct.'' 
After a 2002 article in the San Francisco Chronicle, and inquiries from 
Senator Feinstein, the Bureau acknowledged that there were at least 
17,000 pages of records that still had not been produced. Since then, 
some data has been released, but the requestor recently told me that he 
believes more than 15,000 pages remain outstanding.
  This is an extreme case, but delays are commonplace. Sometimes 
slowdowns are caused by poorly managed or decentralized data systems 
that result in an agency not knowing what documents are located where. 
Other times, components within a single agency do not effectively 
communicate with one another, so that no one can say whether a request 
has been filled or not. Finally, we have heard anecdotal evidence of 
certain agencies engaging in protracted disputes over fee waivers 
sought by FOIA requestors. I have worked closely with the Government 
Accountability Office over the past few years to obtain detailed 
analysis of how fees are collected and how fee waiver requests are 
processed. The analysts at GAO have looked long and hard at these 
issues. I am grateful for their efforts and look forward to the results 
of their study later this year.
  One of the problems faced by GAO, and anyone else who has looked into 
agency delay, is the lack of comprehensive reporting data. We address 
this problem in our companion bill, S.94, the Open Government Act, by 
calling for more detailed reporting from agencies on FOIA processing.
  These issues deserve a closer look in the short term, however. In 
this bill, we propose to establish a commission to review agency delay 
and to make recommendations for reducing impediments to the efficient 
processing of requests. The Commission would also examine whether the 
system for charging fees and granting waivers should be modified.
  The Commission would be made up of government and non-governmental 
representatives with a broad range of experience in both submitting and 
handling FOIA requests, in information science, and in the development 
of government information policy.
  I understand that many requests are complex and that the resources 
devoted to agency FOIA processing are often lacking. Our companion 
bill, S. 394, the Open Government Act, addresses this issue by 
establishing a FOIA ombudsman requiring the Office of Personnel 
Management to examine how FOIA can be better implemented at the agency 
level. If the Commission finds that limited resources are a significant 
factor in slowing down the fulfillment of requests, then Congress 
should address the issue by increasing funding levels for FOIA 
processing.
  I want to thank the Senator from Texas for his diligent work and 
flexibility in crafting a Commission structure that is balanced and 
fair, and that will bring extraordinary expertise to solving these 
nettlesome problems. I urge all of our colleagues to support the Faster 
FOIA Act, which has the potential to help agencies and requestors alike 
in the service of open government.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Burr, Mr. Santorum, 
        Mr. Schumer, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Byrd, Ms. 
        Mikulski, Mr. Graham, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Pryor, Mrs. Lincoln, 
        Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Lott):
  S. 593. A bill to amend title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 to 
provide that the provisions relating to countervailing duties apply to 
nonmarket economy countries; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, our Nation's manufacturers and their 
employees can compete against the best in the world, but they cannot 
compete against nations that provide huge subsidies and other unfair 
advantages to their producers. I hear from manufacturers in my State 
time and time again whose efforts to compete successfully in the global 
economy simply cannot overcome the practices of illegal pricing and 
subsidies of nations such as

[[Page S2487]]

China. The results of these unfair practices are lost jobs, shuttered 
factories, and decimated communities.
  Consider this one example. The American residential wood furniture 
industry has experienced devastating losses due to surges of unfairly 
priced furniture imports from China. According to the U.S. Bureau of 
Labor, 34,700 jobs, or 28 percent of the workforce, have been lost in 
the U.S. furniture industry since 2000. One furniture manufacturer in 
Maine, Moosehead Manufacturing, was forced to eliminate a quarter of 
its employees due to the unfair market conditions it faces.
  Unfairly priced imports from China are a leading cause in these job 
losses. China's wooden bedroom furniture exports to the U.S., which 
amounted to just $169 million in 1999, reached an estimated $1.2 
billion in 2003. By subsidizing investments in furniture manufacturing 
facilities, China is exploiting the U.S. market to the benefit of its 
producers and putting our employees at an unfair advantage.
  This is why I am introducing the ``Stopping Overseas Subsidies Act,'' 
a bill I introduced in the 108th Congress. I am pleased to be joined by 
my good friend and colleague from Indiana, Senator Bayh, who has worked 
closely with me on this legislation. This bill revises current trade 
remedy laws to ensure that U.S. countervailing duty laws apply to 
imports from non-market economies, such as China.
  Our Nation's trade remedy laws are intended to give American 
industries and their employees relief from the effects of illegal trade 
practices. Unfortunately, some countries in the world choose to cheat 
instead of compete fairly. In these cases, U.S. industries can file 
petitions under U.S. trade remedy laws for relief. Under current 
Commerce Department practice, however, U.S. industries competing with 
these unfairly advantaged foreign producers can file an anti-subsidy 
petitions against any market economy--such as Canada or Chile--but not 
against a non-market economy such as China. As a result, those 
countries, such as China, that subsidize their industries the most 
heavily and cause the most injury to U.S. industries and workers are 
exempt from the reach of American anti-subsidy laws.
  It is time that this was changed. It is simply not fair to prevent 
U.S. industries from seeking redress from these unfair trade practices 
because our trade remedy laws are outdated.
  Over the past two decades, there have been significant economic 
changes in many of the countries classified as non-market economies. 
This is particularly true in China, one of our largest trading partners 
and the country with which the United States currently runs its largest 
trade deficit.
  Beginning in the early 1980's and continuing today, China has 
undertaken major economic reforms. Today, China's economy is not 
completely state-controlled. Government price controls on a wide range 
of products have been eliminated. Many enterprises and even entire 
industries have been allowed to operate and compete in an economic 
system that has elements of a free market. And, of course, China has 
taken steps toward fully integrating into the global trading system by 
joining the World Trade Organization and by working toward the 
establishment of a modern commercial, financial, legal, and regulatory 
infrastructure.
  The problem is not China's economic liberalization and modernization. 
The problem is this: now that China has the capacity to be a key 
international economic player, the country has repeatedly refused to 
comply with standard international trading rules and practices. And 
these violations include the use of subsidies and other economic 
incentives that are designed to give its producers an unfair 
competitive advantage.
  Perhaps the most glaring subsidy comes in the form of currency 
manipulation. By keeping the Chinese yuan pegged to the U.S. dollar at 
artificially low levels, the Chinese undervalue the prices of their 
exports. Not only does this practice provide their producers with a 
price advantage, but also it violates International Monetary Fund and 
WTO rules. The Chinese government also reimburses many enterprises for 
their operating losses and provides loans to uncreditworthy companies.
  Currently, U.S. industries have no direct recourse to combat these 
unfair practices. They instead must rely upon government-to-government 
negotiations or on the dispute settlement processes of international 
organizations such as the WTO. While these channels might eventually 
lead to relief, it usually takes years to see results--and by that 
time, that industry could already be decimated.
  Unfair market conditions cannot continue to cause our manufacturers 
to hemorrhage jobs. No state understands this more than my home state 
of Maine. According to a recent study by the National Association of 
Manufacturers, on a percentage basis, Maine lost more manufacturing 
jobs in the previous three years than any other state. This is why 
organizations such as the Maine Forest Products Council and the Maine 
Wood Products Association have strongly endorsed my proposal.
  The Stopping Overseas Subsidies bill is a bipartisan, bicameral bill 
that has a broad range of support across many industries and 
geographical areas. A companion bill is being introduced today in the 
House by Representatives Phil English of Pennsylvania and Artur Davis 
of Alabama. Last year, the Senate bill had eighteen cosponsors.
  I am proud that over twenty organizations and a number of private 
companies, representing a range of industries, have endorsed this bill. 
Some of these organizations include: The American Forest & Paper 
Association, the National Council of Textile Organizations, the 
Printing Industries of America, the Steel Manufacturers Association, 
and the Catfish Farmers of America. Of particular note, the National 
Association of Manufacturers has endorsed this bill and has listed it 
as one of its top trade agenda items in 2005.
  In addition, the United States Economic and Security Review 
Commission, a bipartisan organization established by Congress in 2000 
to provide recommendations to Congress on the relationship between the 
United States and China, has endorsed the goals of this bill. In its 
annual report to Congress in June 2004, the Commission stated, ``U.S. 
policy currently prevents application of countervailing duty laws to 
nonmarket economy countries such as China. This limits the ability of 
the United States to combat China's extensive use of subsidies that 
give Chinese companies an unfair competitive advantage. The Commission 
recommends that Congress urge the Department of Commerce to make 
countervailing duty laws application to nonmarket economies. If 
Commerce does not do so, Congress should pass legislation to achieve 
the same effect.''
  U.S. industries don't want protection--they want fair competition. 
Illegal subsidies distort fair competition, regardless of the economic 
system in which they are used. Our legislation simply levels the 
playing field by allowing anti-subsidy petitions to be brought against 
non-market economies in addition to market economies.
  Countries such as China want to have all the benefits of engaging in 
international trading institutions and systems and continue to cheat on 
the system with no penalties. It is time these countries were held to 
the same standards as other countries around the world. I ask you to 
join me in supporting the SOS bill to ensure that all countries are 
held accountable for their trade practices.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 594. A bill to amend section 1114 of title 11, United States Code, 
to preserve the health benefits of certain retired miners; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, yesterday during consideration of the 
Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005, I offered an amendment regarding a 
serious matter involving the guaranteed health benefits of retired coal 
miners and their families. Unfortunately due to an objection to the 
unanimous consent request for consideration of my amendment, it was not 
considered. Therefore, to continue my efforts on behalf of our Nation's 
coal miners, I have elected today to introduce the Retired Coal Miner 
Health Benefits Preservation Act.
  This legislation would reaffirm the commitment stipulated in the Coal 
Act of 1992, which guaranteed health benefits to retired coal miners 
and their families and would clarify the lack of authority of the 
bankruptcy court to

[[Page S2488]]

modify or terminate statutory obligations required under Section 9711 
of the Coal Act. This legislation is a direct response to a recent 
bankruptcy court proceeding in which the court determined it had the 
authority under Section 1114 of the Bankruptcy Code to modify the level 
of benefits required to be provided under Section 9711 of the Coal Act.
  The Coal Act of 1992 mandated coal operators to fulfill their promise 
to provide their employees and families health benefits and those 
obligations could not be modified. As an original cosponsor to this 
legislation, I am intimately aware of its effect on the 14,000 retired 
coal miners and their dependents in Pennsylvania. Nationally, this Act 
effects over 60,000 individuals including every State except for 
Hawaii. These health benefits form a central underpinning for the 
medical care structure of the coal field communities. The promise of 
the Coal Act applied to a fixed pool of coal miners that was closed as 
of 1994.
  Additionally, I want to note that there may be some speculation 
raised by my colleagues in reference to the recent bankruptcy of 
Horizon Natural Resources. In this particular bankruptcy proceeding, 
the court concluded that Section 1114 trumped the Coal Act, which is 
simply not the case. This or other statutory obligations cannot be 
undermined by the bankruptcy court. Congress intended that Section 1114 
be a statutory obligation and not a contractual obligation. Therefore, 
this egregious court decision unfortunately trumps the true intent of 
the Coal Act.
  Finally, I am aware that my colleague, Senator Rockefeller, offered 
legislation in the 108th Congress to address this issue and I commend 
him for it. Today, I am continuing his prodigious work by introducing 
this legislation which reinforces what Congress intended, which was not 
to obstruct the statutory requirements of the Coal Act. I urge my 
colleagues to strongly support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Smith, Mr. 
        Rockefeller, and Mr. Jeffords):
  S. 595. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 
the work opportunity credit and the welfare-to-work credit; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Baucus in 
the reintroduction of the Encouraging Work Act of 2005. The Work 
Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) and We1fare-to-Work Tax Credit (W-t-W) 
are tax incentives that encourage employers to hire public assistance 
recipients and other individuals with barriers to employment. The 
combination of Welfare Reform passed by Congress in 1996 and the 
assistance to employers found in the WOTC and W-t-W has enabled 
expanded opportunity for many Americans. Yet more can be done. We were 
pleased that the Senate JOBS bill passed last year included a permanent 
WOTC/W-t-W provision along with helpful reforms largely supported by 
the Administration. Unfortunately, it was only extended in another tax 
relief bill. Without action by Congress WOTC and W-t-W will expire on 
January 1, 2006.
  Under present law, WOTC provides a 40 percent tax credit on the first 
$6,000 of wages for those working at least 400 hours, or a partial 
credit of 25 percent for those working 120-399 hours. W-t-W provides a 
35 percent tax credit on the first $10,000 of wages for those working 
400 hours in the first year. In the second year, the W-t-W credit is 50 
percent of the first $10,000 of wages earned. WOTC and W-t-W are key 
elements of welfare reform. A growing number of employers use these 
programs in the retail, health care, hotel, financial services, food, 
and other industries. These programs have helped over 2,700,000 
previously dependent persons to find jobs.
  WOTC and W-t-W eligibility is limited to: 1. Recipients of Temporary 
Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) in 9 of the 18 months ending on the 
hiring date; 2. individua1s receiving Supplemental Security Income 
(SSI) benefits; 3. disabled individuals with vocational rehabilitation 
referrals; 4. veterans on food stamps; 5. individuals in households 
receiving food stamp benefits; 6. qualified summer youth employees; 7. 
low-income ex-felons; and 8. individua1s age 18-24 1iving in 
empowerment zones or renewal communities. Eligibility for W-t-W is 
limited to individuals receiving welfare benefits for 18 consecutive 
months ending on the hiring date. More than 80 percent of WOTC and W-t-
W hires were previously dependent on public assistance programs. These 
credits are both a hiring incentive--offsetting some of the higher 
costs of recruiting, hiring, and retaining public assistance recipients 
and other low-skilled individua1s--and a retention incentive, providing 
a higher reward for those who stay longer on the job.
  After eight years of experience with these programs, their value has 
been well demonstrated. In 2001, the GAO issued a report that indicated 
that employers have significantly changed their hiring practices 
because of WOTC. With the resources provided by WOTC, employers have 
provided job mentors, lengthened training periods, engaged in 
recruiting outreach, and listed jobs or requested referrals from public 
agencies or partnerships. WOTC and W-t-W have become a true public-
private partnership in which the Department of Labor, the Internal 
Revenue Service, the states, and employers have forged excellent 
working relationships.

  But the challenges for employers and those looking for better 
opportunities are real. The job skills of eligible persons leaving 
welfare are sometimes limited, and the costs of recruiting, training, 
and supervising low-skilled individuals cause many employers to look 
elsewhere for employees. WOTC and W-t-W are proven incentives for 
encouraging employers to seek employees from the targeted groups. 
Despite the considerable success of WOTC and W-t-W, many vulnerable 
individuals still need a boost in finding employment. There are several 
legislative changes that would strengthen these programs, expand 
employment opportunities for needy individuals, and make the programs 
more attractive to employers.
  Combine WOTC and W-t-W. The Administration's FY 2006 budget proposes 
to simplify these important employment incentives by combining them 
into one credit and making the rules for computing the combined credits 
simpler. The credits would be combined by creating a new welfare-to-
work target group under WOTC. The minimum employment periods and credit 
rates for the first year of employment under the present work 
opportunity tax credit would apply to W-t-W employees. The maximum 
amount of eligible wages would continue to be $10,000 for W-t-W 
employees and $6,000 for other target groups ($3,000 for summer youth). 
In addition, the second year 50-percent credit under W-t-W would 
continue to be available for W-t-W employees under the modified WOTC.
  Eliminate Requirement to Determine Family Income for Ex-Felons. Under 
current law, only those ex-felons whose annual family income is 70 
percent or less than the Bureau of Labor Statistics lower living 
standard during the six months preceding the hiring date are eligible 
for WOTC. The Administration's FY 2006 budget proposes to eliminate the 
family income attribution rule.
  Permanent Extension of WOTC and W-t-W. Permanent extension would 
provide these programs with greater stability, thereby encouraging more 
employers to participate, make investments in expanding outreach to 
identify potential workers from the targeted groups, and avoid the 
wasteful disruption of termination and renewal. A permanent extension 
would also encourage the state job services to invest the resources 
needed to make the certification process more efficient and employer-
friendly.
  Raise the WOTC age eligibility ceiling from 24 to 39 years of age for 
members of food stamp households and ``high-risk youth'' living in 
enterprise zones or renewal communities. Current WOTC eligibility rules 
heavily favor the hiring of women because single mothers are much more 
likely to be on welfare or food stamps. Women constitute about 80 
percent of those hired under the WOTC program, but men from welfare 
households face the same or even greater barriers to finding work. 
Increasing the age ceiling in the ``food stamp category'' would greatly 
improve the job prospects for many absentee fathers and other ``at 
risk''

[[Page S2489]]

males. This change would be completely consistent with program 
objectives because many food stamp households include adults who are 
not working, and more than 90 percent of those on food stamps live 
below the poverty line.
  WOTC and W-t-W are also key elements of welfare reform. Employers in 
the retail, health care, hotel, financial services, and food industries 
have incorporated this program into their hiring practices and through 
these programs, more than 2,700,000 previously dependent persons have 
found work. A recent report issued by the New York State Department of 
Labor bears this out in economic terms. Comparing the cost of WOTC 
credits, taken by New York state employers during the period 1996-2003 
(for a total of $192.59 million), with savings achieved through closed 
welfare cases and reductions in vocational rehabilitation programs and 
jail spending (for a total of $199.89 million), the State of New York 
concluded that WOTC provided net benefits to the taxpayers even without 
taking into account the additional economic benefits resulting from the 
addition of new wages.
  In that regard, the New York State analysis concluded that the 
roughly $90 million in wages paid to WOTC workers since 1996 generated 
roughly $225 million in increased economic activity. Perhaps even more 
importantly, the study found that roughly fifty-eight percent of the 
TANF recipients who entered private sector employment with the 
assistance of WOTC stayed off welfare. I mention the New York State 
study because it is the first of its kind; however, I am certain that 
similar conclusions would be reached in the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania or any of the other forty-eight states and the District of 
Columbia. These programs work and do so at a net savings to taxpayers. 
In fact, over a 7-year period there were more than 110,000 
certifications for both WOTC and W-t-W in Pennsylvania, alone enabling 
many to leave welfare and find private sector work. The legislation is 
supported by hundreds of employers throughout Pennsylvania and around 
the country. WOTC and W-t-W have received high praise as well from the 
federal government. A 2001 GAO study concluded that employers have 
significantly changed their hiring practices because of WOTC by 
providing job mentors, longer training periods, and significant 
recruiting outreach efforts.
  WOTC and W-t-W are not traditional government jobs programs. Instead 
they are precisely the type of program that we should champion in a 
time when we need to be fiscally responsible. These are efficient and 
low cost public-private partnerships that have as their goal to provide 
a means by which individuals can transition from welfare to a lifetime 
of work and dignity.
  The Work Opportunity Credit and Welfare-to-Work Credit have been 
successful in moving traditionally hard-to-employ persons off welfare 
and into the workforce, where they contribute to our economy. However, 
employer participation in these important programs can be increased, 
particularly among small and medium-sized employers. This is due to the 
complexity of the credits and the fact that they are both only 
temporary provisions of the tax code subject to renewal every year or 
two. Small, medium, and even some large employers find it difficult to 
justify developing the necessary infrastructure to administer and 
participate in these programs when their continued existence beyond one 
or two years is constantly in question.
  This legislation will remedy this problem by combining WOTC and W-t-W 
into one, more easily administered tax credit, and by making it a 
permanent part of the tax code. Many organizations including the 
National Council of Chain Restaurants, National Retail Federation, Food 
Marketing Institute, National Association of Convenience Stores, 
National Restaurant Association, American Hotel & Lodging Association, 
National Roofing Contractors Association, National Association of Chain 
Drug Stores, American Nursery and Landscape Association, and the 
American Health Care Association support this legislaiton. 
Representatives Jerry Weller R-IL, Charles Rangel D-NY, and Phil 
English R-PA are introducing identical legislation in the House of 
Representatives. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this 
legislation.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator 
Santorum, in introducing legislation to permanently extend and improve 
upon the Work Opportunity and the Welfare-to-Work tax credits. Last 
year, I was pleased to successfully add a permanent a extension of 
these credits to the Senate passed JOBS bill, which combined the 
credits and made certain improvements. When the expiring tax provisions 
were considered last year as part of the Working Families Tax Relief 
bill, I offered an amendment to combine both credits and make them 
permanent. While this provision was not retained in conference, I was 
successful in securing an extension of the current program through 
December 31, 2005. This extension expires at the end of this year so 
immediate action is needed to make these credits permanent and make 
several reforms in the programs to improve their effectiveness. These 
recurring lapses and extensions make administration of this credit 
burdensome both for the taxpaying employer, who cannot keep track of 
who is or isn't qualified, and for the IRS, which needs to ensure 
taxpayers are complying with the ever-shifting law.
  Over the past decade, the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, WOTC, and the 
Welfare-to Work, W-t-W, have helped over 2.2 million public assistance 
dependent individuals enter the workforce. Both of these important 
programs are scheduled to expire on December 31, 2005. These hiring tax 
incentives have clearly demonstrated their effectiveness in helping to 
level the job selection playing field for low-skilled individuals by 
providing employers with additional resources to help recruit, select, 
train and retain individuals with significant barriers to work. Many 
vulnerable individuals still need a boost in finding employment, and 
this is particularly critical during periods of high unemployment. The 
weak economy and rising unemployment give employers many more hiring 
options because of the larger pool of experienced laid-off workers. 
Without an extension of these programs, the task of transitioning from 
welfare-to-work will become even harder for individuals who reach their 
welfare eligibility ceiling.
  Because of the costs involved in setting up and administering a WOTC/
W-t-W program, employers have established massive outreach programs to 
maximize the number of eligible persons in their hiring pool. The 
States, in turn, have steadily improved the programs through improved 
administration. WOTC has become an example of a true public-private 
partnership design to assist the most needy applicants. Without the 
additional resources provided by these hiring tax incentives, few 
employers would actively seek out this hard-to-employ population.
  WOTC provides employers with a graduated tax credit equal to 25-
percent of the first $6,000 in wages for eligible individuals working 
between 120 hours and 399 hours and a 40-percent tax credit on the 
first $6,000 in wages for those working over 400 hours. The W-t-W tax 
credit is geared toward long-term welfare recipients and provides a 35-
percent tax credit on the first $10,000 in wages during the first year 
of employment and a 50-percent credit on the first $10,000 for those 
who stay on the job a second year.
  In my own State of Montana, many businesses take advantage of this 
program, including large multinational firms and smaller family-owned 
businesses. Those who truly benefit from the WOTC/W-t-W program, 
however, are low-income families, under the Food Stamp Program, the Aid 
to Families with Dependent Children, AFDC, and Temporary Assistance for 
Needy Families, TANF, programs, and also low-income U.S. Veterans. In 
Montana, more than 1,000 people were certified as eligible under the 
WOTC program during an 18-month period, October 2001 through March 
2003, including 476 Food Stamp recipients, 475 AFDC/TANF recipients, 
and 52 U.S. veterans.
  The bill we are introducing provides for a permanent program 
extension of the two credits. After a decade of experience with WOTC 
and W-t-W, we know that employers do respond to these important hiring 
tax incentives. Permanent extension would provide these

[[Page S2490]]

programs with greater stability, thereby encouraging more employers to 
participate, make investments in expanding outreach to identify 
potential workers from the targeted groups, and avoid the wasteful 
disruption of termination and renewal A permanent extension would also 
encourage the state job services to invest the resources needed to make 
the certification process more efficient and employer-friendly.
  The bill also includes a proposal to simplify the programs by 
combining them into one credit and making the rules for computing the 
combined credits simpler. This would be accomplished by creating a new 
welfare-to-work target group under WOTC. The minimum employment periods 
and credit rates for the first year of employment under present work 
opportunity tax credit would apply to W-t-W employees. The maximum 
amount of eligible wages would continue to be $10,000 for W-t-W 
employees. In addition, the second year 50-percent credit under W-t-W 
would continue to be available for W-t-W employees under the modified 
WOTC.
  Finally, there are other changes in the bill that would extend these 
benefits to more people and help them find work. Because of the 
program's eligibility criteria, over 80 percent of those hired are 
women leaving welfare. Since men are not eligible for TANF benefits 
unless they are parenting their kids, the fathers of children on 
welfare receive little help in finding work, even though they often 
face barriers to work just as women on welfare do. We propose to help 
absentee fathers find work and provide the resources to assume their 
family responsibilities by opening up WOTC eligibility to anyone 39 
years old or younger in families receiving food stamps or residing in 
enterprise zones or empowerment communities. Raising the eligibility 
limits in these two categories will extend eligibility to hundreds of 
thousands of at-risk men.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THOMAS:
  S. 596. A bill to reform the nation's outdated laws relating to the 
electric industry, improve the operation of our transmission system, 
enhance reliability of our electric grid, increase consumer benefits 
from wholesale electric competition and restore investor confidence in 
the electric industry; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce the ``Electric 
Transmission and Reliability Enhancement Act of 2005''. It is my 
intention to build on the competitive wholesale open access policies 
adopted by the Congress in the 1992 Energy Policy Act. My legislation 
would extend and improve these open, non-discriminatory access 
policies; remove antiquated federal statutory barriers that stand in 
the way of competitive wholesale markets; encourage increased 
investment in our transmission system and establish enforceable 
reliability standards to help ensure the continued reliability of the 
interstate transmission system.
  The Congress has been debating how to update the antiquated statutory 
and regulatory framework governing the electric industry for over eight 
years. We repeatedly have tried and failed to enact legislation that 
would provide the right economic signals and regulatory certainty 
necessary for industry and wholesale market modernization. The loser in 
all of this has been the consumer, who has been denied the full 
benefits that access provides to fairly priced, reliable supplies of 
power. I have come to the conclusion that if we are to legislate 
successfully, we will have to pare down our wish list to the bare 
essentials plus those issues necessary for the electric industry to 
attract the capital it needs to keep our lights on and ensure that 
customers pay no more for their power than is fair and necessary.
  It seems clear that if truly competitive wholesale markets are to 
exist, there is a need to ensure that all industry participants play by 
the same rules. While the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has 
tried to ensure this, the Commission's tools are limited. Only Congress 
can give FERC the tools it needs to ensure that all industry 
participants in competitive wholesale markets play by the same rules.
  Under present federal law FERC has no jurisdiction or authority over 
transmission facilities owned by public power agencies, municipalities 
and cooperatives. In the West these types of entities own a substantial 
portion, perhaps as much as half of the interstate electric 
transmission system. As a matter of fact, in the Western Electric 
Coordinating Council, an area that encompasses all or part of 11 
Western states and parts of Canada, non-FERC jurisdictional facilities 
account for 52 percent of transmission miles.
  My legislation would permit FERC to require certain nonregulated 
utilities to offer transmission service at comparable rates to those 
they charge themselves, and on terms and conditions comparable to those 
applicable to jurisdictional public utilities. Currently nonregulated 
transmitting utilities would not be subject to the full panoply of FERC 
regulation under this provision. Instead, a ``light handed'' form of 
regulation would apply and small nonregulated entities, such as those 
that sell less than 4,000,000 MW/h per year, would be entirely exempt 
from these nondiscrimination requirements.
  It also seems clear that the Public Utility Holding Company Act is 
hindering necessary restructuring of the industry and the deployment of 
capital into an industry that desperately needs it. Investors are 
deterred simply because they do not want to deal with the PUHCA rules 
and restrictions. If repealed, utility securities will continue to be 
regulated by the SEC, FERC and most state commissions. Mergers and 
acquisitions of jurisdictional assets would still require FERC and 
state commission approval and review by the Department of Justice, DOJ, 
and the Federal Trade Commission, FTC. FERC and state commissions would 
still be able to monitor rates and prevent cross-subsidies.
  Despite State progress in administering the Public Utility Regulatory 
Policies Act of 1978, it is clear that PURPA continues to provide 
special privileges to certain favored generators at the expense of 
utilities and their customers. Like PUHCA, PURPA is no longer needed in 
today's competitive wholesale markets. My legislation prospectively 
eliminates the mandatory purchase and sell obligations of PURPA.
  Over the years the grid has been well protected through voluntary 
standards established by the North American Electric 
Reliability Council. NERC's voluntary reliability standards--which are 
not enforceable--have generally been complied with by the electric 
power industry. But with the opening of the wholesale power market to 
competition, our transmission grid is being used in ways for which it 
was not designed. New system strains are also being created by the 
break-up of vertically integrated utilities and by the emergence of new 
market structures and participants. The results of these changes have 
been an increase in the number and severity of violations of NERC's 
voluntary rules.

  My legislation converts the existing NERC voluntary reliability 
system into a mandatory reliability system. A North America-wide 
organization would have the authority to establish and enforce 
reliability standards, and take into account regional differences. The 
new reliability organization will be run by market participants, and 
will be overseen by the FERC in the U.S. The organization will be made 
up of representatives of everyone who is affected--residential, 
commercial and industrial consumers; State public utility commissions; 
independent power producers; electric utilities and others. There is no 
question that we need a new system to safeguard the integrity of our 
electric grid. My legislation would do this, using language that was 
agreed upon in the last Congress by House and Senate conferees for the 
energy bill.
  During the last energy debate, efforts were made to address some of 
the more egregious behavior and attempted market manipulation by 
certain entities through legislation. While this area is obviously very 
complex, we need to address this issue if regulatory gaps truly do 
exist. I realize my attempt might not be perfect, but I wanted to 
initiate discussion on this very important topic if in fact regulatory 
agencies do need additional authority to police and monitor the 
industry.
  My legislation will provide more information on prices of electricity 
and

[[Page S2491]]

transmission availability, outlaw the practice of round trip trading 
and prohibit reporting of false information for the purpose of 
manipulating price indices. In addition I've included authority the 
FERC has requested and that would increase civil and criminal penalties 
for violation of the Federal Power Act and accelerate the refund 
effective date to the date of filing of a complaint.
  In the end it's about the consumer. It is my hope and vision that 
this legislation will produce a more reliable and efficient 
transmission system and that these improvements will result in more 
dependable and affordable electricity for all consumers.
  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. 596

       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 ``Electric Transmission and 
     Reliability Enhancement Act of 2005''.
                   TITLE I--TRANSMISSION IMPROVEMENT

     SEC. 101. OPEN NON-DISCRIMINATORY ACCESS.

       Part II of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824 et seq.) is 
     amended by inserting after section 211 the following:


          ``OPEN ACCESS BY UNREGULATED TRANSMITTING UTILITIES

       ``SEC. 211A. (a) Subject to section 212(h), the Commission 
     may, by rule or order, require an unregulated transmitting 
     utility to provide transmission services--
       ``(1) at rates that are comparable to those that the 
     unregulated transmitting utility charges itself, and
       ``(2) on terms and conditions (not relating to rates) that 
     are comparable to those under Commission rules that require 
     public utilities to offer open access transmission services 
     and that are not unduly discriminatory or preferential.
       ``(b) The Commission shall exempt from any rule or order 
     under this subsection any unregulated transmitting utility 
     that--
       ``(1) sells no more than 4,000,000 megawatt hours of 
     electricity per year;
       ``(2) does not own or operate any transmission facilities 
     that are necessary for operating an interconnected 
     transmission system (or any portion thereof); or
       ``(3) meets other criteria the Commission determines to be 
     in the public interest.
       ``(c) The rate changing procedures applicable to public 
     utilities under subsections (c) and (d) of section 205 are 
     applicable to unregulated transmitting utilities for purposes 
     of this section.
       ``(d) In exercising its authority under paragraph (1) of 
     subsection (a), the Commission may remand transmission rates 
     to an unregulated transmitting utility for review and 
     revision where necessary to meet the requirements of 
     subsection (a).
       ``(e) The provision of transmission services under 
     subsection (a) does not preclude a request for transmission 
     services under section 211.
       ``(f) The Commission may not require a State or 
     municipality to take action under this section that 
     constitutes a private business use for purposes of section 
     141 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 141).
       ``(g) For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     `unregulated transmitting utility' means an entity that--
       ``(1) owns or operates facilities used for the transmission 
     of electric energy in interstate commerce, and
       ``(2) is either an entity described in section 201(f) or a 
     rural electric cooperative.''.

     SEC. 102. FEDERAL AGENCY COORDINATION.

       The Department of Energy shall be the lead agency for 
     conducting environmental review (for purposes of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969) of the establishment and 
     modification of electric power transmission corridors across 
     federal lands. The Secretary of Energy shall coordinate with 
     Federal agencies, including Federal land management agencies, 
     to ensure the timely completion of environmental reviews 
     pertaining to such corridors and may set deadlines for the 
     completion of such reviews. For purposes of this section, the 
     term ``Federal land management agencies'' means the Bureau of 
     Land Management, the United States Forest Service, the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Department of 
     Defense. For purposes of this section, ``Federal lands'' 
     means all lands owned by the United States except lands in 
     the National Park System or the national wilderness 
     preservation system, or such other lands as the President 
     may designate.

     SEC. 103. PRIORITY FOR RIGHTS-OF-WAY ACROSS FEDERAL LANDS.

       Section 501 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
     of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1761) is amended by adding the following 
     new subsection at the end thereof:
       ``(e) In administering the provisions of this title, the 
     Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture 
     shall each give a priority to applications for rights of way 
     for electric power transmission corridors.''.

     SEC. 104. ELECTRIC RELIABILITY STANDARDS.

       Part II of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824 et seq.) is 
     amended by inserting the following new section at the end 
     thereof:

     ``SEC. 215. ELECTRIC RELIABILITY.

       ``(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) The term `bulk-power system' means--
       ``(A) facilities and control systems necessary for 
     operating an interconnected electric energy transmission 
     network (or any portion thereof); and
       ``(B) electric energy from generation facilities needed to 
     maintain transmission system reliability.
       The term 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 `reliability standard' means a requirement, 
     approved by the Commission under this section, to provide for 
     reliable operation of the bulk-power system. The term 
     includes requirements for the operation of existing bulk-
     power system facilities and the design of planned additions 
     or modifications to such facilities to the extent necessary 
     to provide for reliable operation of the bulk- power system, 
     but the term does not include any requirement to enlarge such 
     facilities or to construct new transmission capacity or 
     generation capacity.
       ``(4) 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.
       ``(5) The term `Interconnection' means a geographic area in 
     which the operation of bulk-power system components is 
     synchronized such that the failure of one 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.
       ``(6) 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.
       ``(7) The term `regional entity' means an entity having 
     enforcement authority pursuant to subsection (e)(4).
       ``(b) Jurisdiction and Applicability.--(1) 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 but not limited to the entities 
     described in section 201(f), for purposes of approving 
     reliability standards established under this section and 
     enforcing compliance with this section. All users, owners and 
     operators of the bulk-power system shall comply with 
     reliability standards that take effect under this section.
       ``(2) The Commission shall issue a final rule to implement 
     the requirements of this section not later than 180 days 
     after the date of enactment of this section.
       ``(c) Certification.--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 (ERO). The Commission 
     may certify one such ERO if the Commission determines that 
     such ERO--
       ``(1) 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;
       ``(2) has established rules that--
       ``(A) assure its independence of the users and owners and 
     operators of the bulk-power system, while assuring fair 
     stakeholder representation in the selection of its directors 
     and balanced decisionmaking in any ERO committee or 
     subordinate organizational structure;
       ``(B) allocate equitably reasonable dues, fees, and other 
     charges among end users for all activities under this 
     section;
       ``(C) 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);
       ``(D) provide for reasonable notice and opportunity for 
     public comment, due process, openness, and balance of 
     interests in developing reliability standards and otherwise 
     exercising its duties; and
       ``(E) 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 it proposes to be 
     made effective under this section with the Commission.
       ``(2) The Commission may approve by rule or order a 
     proposed reliability standard or modification to a 
     reliability standard if it determines that the standard is 
     just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, 
     and in the public interest. The Commission shall give due 
     weight to the technical expertise of the Electric Reliability 
     Organization with respect to the content of a 
     proposed standard or modification

[[Page S2492]]

     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 shall not 
     defer with respect to the effect of a standard on 
     competition. 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 its own motion 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) 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. Such transmission 
     organization shall continue to comply with such function, 
     rule, order, tariff, rate schedule or agreement accepted 
     approved, or ordered by the Commission until--
       ``(A) the Commission finds a conflict exists between a 
     reliability standard and any such provision;
       ``(B) the Commission orders a change to such provision 
     pursuant to section 206 of this part; and
       ``(C) the ordered change becomes effective under this part. 
     If the Commission determines that a reliability standard 
     needs to be changed as a result of such a conflict, it shall 
     order the ERO to develop and file with the Commission a 
     modified reliability standard under paragraph (4) or (5) of 
     this subsection.
       ``(e) Enforcement.--(1) The ERO may impose, subject to 
     paragraph (2), 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 penalty imposed under paragraph (1) may take effect 
     not earlier than the 31st day after the Electric Reliability 
     Organization files with the Commission notice of the penalty 
     and the record of proceedings. Such penalty shall be subject 
     to review by the Commission, on its own motion or upon 
     application by the user, owner or operator that is the 
     subject of the penalty filed within 30 days after the date 
     such notice is filed with the Commission. Application to the 
     Commission for review, or the initiation of review by the 
     Commission on its own motion, shall not operate as a stay of 
     such penalty unless the Commission otherwise orders upon its 
     own motion or upon application by the user, owner or operator 
     that is the subject of such penalty. 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 Electric Reliability 
     Organization 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 
     Electric Reliability Organization for further proceedings. 
     The Commission shall implement expedited procedures for such 
     hearings.
       ``(3) On its own motion 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 acts or practices that constitute or will constitute a 
     violation of a reliability standard.
       ``(4) The Commission shall establish regulations directing 
     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--
       ``(A) the regional entity is governed by an independent, 
     balanced stakeholder, or combination independent and balanced 
     stakeholder board;
       ``(B) the regional entity otherwise satisfies the 
     provisions of subsection (c)(l) and (2); and
       ``(C) the agreement promotes effective and efficient 
     administration of bulk-power system reliability.

     The Commission may modify such delegation. 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. Such regulation may provide that the Commission may 
     assign the ERO's authority to enforce reliability standards 
     under paragraph (1) directly to a regional entity consistent 
     with the requirements of this paragraph.
       ``(5) The Commission may take such action as is necessary 
     or 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 such user, 
     owner, or operator to remedy the violation in a timely 
     manner.
       ``(f) Changes in Electricity Reliability Organization 
     Rules.--The Electric Reliability Organization shall file with 
     the Commission for approval any proposed rule or proposed 
     rule change, accompanied by an explanation of its basis 
     and purpose. The Commission, upon its own motion or 
     complaint, may propose a change to the rules of the 
     Electric Reliability Organization. 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 satisfies the requirements of subsection (c).
       ``(g) Reliability Reports.--The Electric Reliability 
     Organization 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 Electric Reliability Organization in the United States 
     and Canada or Mexico.
       ``(i) Savings Provisions.--(1) The Electric Reliability 
     Organization shall have authority to develop and enforce 
     compliance with reliability standards for only the bulk-power 
     system.
       ``(2) This section does not authorize the Electric 
     Reliability Organization 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 shall be construed to preempt 
     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) Within 90 days of the 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 Electric Reliability 
     Organization.
       ``(5) The Commission, after consultation with the Electric 
     Reliability Organization, may stay the effectiveness of any 
     State action, pending the Commission's issuance of a final 
     order.
       ``(j) Regional Advisory Bodies.--The Commission shall 
     establish a regional advisory body on the petition of at 
     least two-thirds of the States within a region that have more 
     than one-half of their electric load served within the 
     region. A regional advisory body shall be composed of one 
     member from each participating State in the region, appointed 
     by the Governor of each State, and may include 
     representatives of agencies, States, and provinces outside 
     the United States. A regional advisory body may provide 
     advice to the Electric Reliability Organization, a regional 
     entity, or the Commission regarding the governance of an 
     existing or proposed regional entity within the same region, 
     whether a standard proposed to apply within the region is 
     just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, 
     and in the public interest, whether fees proposed to be 
     assessed within the region are just, reasonable, not unduly 
     discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest 
     and any other responsibilities requested by the Commission. 
     The Commission may give deference to the advice of any such 
     regional advisory body if that body is organized on an 
     Interconnection-wide basis.
       ``(k) Application to Alaska and Hawaii.--The provisions of 
     this section do not apply to Alaska or Hawaii.''.

             TITLE II--ELIMINATION OF COMPETITIVE BARRIERS

Subtitle A--Provisions Regarding the Public Utility Holding Company Act 
                                of 1935

     SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS.

       For the purposes of this subtitle:
       (1) The term ``affiliate'' of a company means any company 5 
     percent or more of the outstanding voting securities of which 
     are owned, controlled, or held with power to vote, directly 
     or indirectly, by such company.
       (2) The term ``associate company'' of a company means any 
     company in the same holding company system with such company.
       (3) The term ``Commission'' means the Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission.

[[Page S2493]]

       (4) The term ``company'' means a corporation, partnership, 
     association, joint stock company, business trust, or any 
     organized group of persons, whether incorporated or not, or a 
     receiver, trustee, or other liquidating agent of any of the 
     foregoing.
       (5) The term ``electric utility company'' means any company 
     that owns or operates facilities used for the generation, 
     transmission, or distribution of electric energy for sale.
       (6) The terms ``exempt wholesale generator'' and ``foreign 
     utility company'' have the same meanings as in sections 32 
     and 33, respectively, of the Public Utility Holding Company 
     Act of 1935 (15 U.S.C. 79z-5, 79z-5b), as those sections 
     existed on the day before the effective date of this 
     subtitle.
       (7) The term ``gas utility company'' means any company that 
     owns or operates facilities used for distribution at retail 
     (other than the distribution only in enclosed portable 
     containers or distribution to tenants or employees of the 
     company operating such facilities for their own use and not 
     for resale) of natural or manufactured gas for heat, light, 
     or power.
       (8) the term ``holding company'' means--
       (A) any company that directly or indirectly owns, controls, 
     or holds, with power to vote, 10 percent or more of the 
     outstanding voting securities of a public utility company or 
     of a holding company of any public utility company; and
       (B) any person, determined by the Commission, after notice 
     and opportunity for hearing, to exercise directly or 
     indirectly (either alone or pursuant to an arrangement or 
     understanding with one or more persons) such a 
     controlling influence over the management or policies of 
     any public utility company or holding company as to make 
     it necessary or appropriate for the rate protection of 
     utility customers with respect to rates that such person 
     be subject to the obligations, duties, and liabilities 
     imposed by this subtitle upon holding companies.
       (9) The term ``holding company system'' means a holding 
     company, together with its subsidiary companies.
       (10) The term ``jurisdictional rates'' means rates 
     established by the Commission for the transmission of 
     electric energy in interstate commerce, the sale of electric 
     energy at wholesale in interstate commerce, the 
     transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce, and the 
     sale in interstate commerce of natural gas for resale for 
     ultimate public consumption for domestic, commercial, 
     industrial, or any other use.
       (11) The term ``natural gas company'' means a person 
     engaged in the transportation of natural gas in interstate 
     commerce or the sale of such gas in interstate commerce for 
     resale.
       (12) The term ``person'' means an individual or company.
       (13) The term ``public utility'' means any person who owns 
     or operates facilities used for transmission of electric 
     energy in interstate commerce or sales of electric energy at 
     wholesale in interstate commerce.
       (14) The term ``public utility company'' means an electric 
     utility company or a gas utility company.
       (15) The term ``State commission'' means any commission, 
     board, agency, or officer, by whatever name designated, of a 
     State, municipality, or other political subdivision of a 
     State that, under the laws of such State, has jurisdiction to 
     regulate public utility companies.
       (16) The term ``subsidiary company'' of a holding company 
     means--
       (A) any company, 10 percent or more of the outstanding 
     voting securities of which are directly or indirectly owned, 
     controlled, or held with power to vote, by such holding 
     company; and
       (B) any person, the management or policies of which the 
     Commission, after notice and opportunity for hearing, 
     determines to be subject to a controlling influence, directly 
     or indirectly, by such holding company (either alone or 
     pursuant to an arrangement or understanding with one or more 
     other persons) so as to make it necessary for the rate 
     protection of utility customers with respect to rates that 
     such person be subject to the obligations, duties, and 
     liabilities imposed by this subtitle upon subsidiary 
     companies of holding companies.
       (17) The term ``voting security'' means any security 
     presently entitling the owner or holder thereof to vote in 
     the direction or management of the affairs of a company.

     SEC. 202. REPEAL OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 
                   1935.

       The Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (15 U.S.C. 
     79a and following) is repealed, effective 12 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 203. FEDERAL ACCESS TO BOOKS AND RECORDS.

       (a) In General.--Each holding company and each associate 
     company thereof shall maintain, and shall make available to 
     the Commission, such books, accounts, memoranda, and other 
     records as the Commission determines are relevant to costs 
     incurred by a public utility or natural gas company that is 
     an associate company of such holding company and necessary or 
     appropriate for the protection of utility customers with 
     respect to jurisdictional rates.
       (b) Affiliate Companies.--Each affiliate of a holding 
     company or of any subsidiary company of a holding company 
     shall maintain, and make available to the Commission, such 
     books, accounts, memoranda, and other records with respect to 
     any transaction with another affiliate, as the Commission 
     determines are relevant to costs incurred by a public utility 
     or natural gas company that is an associate company of such 
     holding company and necessary or appropriate for the 
     protection of utility customers with respect to 
     jurisdictional rates.
       (c) Holding Company Systems.--The Commission may examine 
     the books, accounts, memoranda, and other records of any 
     company in a holding company system, or any affiliate 
     thereof, as the Commission determines are relevant to costs 
     incurred by a public utility or natural gas company within 
     such holding company system and necessary or appropriate for 
     the protection of utility customers with respect to 
     jurisdictional rates.
       (d) Confidentiality.--No member, officer, or employee of 
     the Commission shall divulge any fact or information that may 
     come to his or her knowledge during the course of examination 
     of books, accounts, memoranda, or other records as provided 
     in this section, except as may be directed by the Commission 
     or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

     SEC. 204. STATE ACCESS TO BOOKS AND RECORDS.

       (a) In General.--Upon the written request of a State 
     commission having jurisdiction to regulate a public utility 
     company in a holding company system, and subject to such 
     terms and conditions as may be necessary and appropriate to 
     safeguard against unwarranted disclosure to the public of any 
     trade secrets or sensitive commercial information, a holding 
     company or any associate company or affiliate thereof, 
     wherever located, shall produce for inspection books, 
     accounts, memoranda, and other records that--
       (1) have been identified in reasonable detail in a 
     proceeding before the State commission;
       (2) the State commission determines are relevant to costs 
     incurred by such public utility company; and
       (3) are necessary for the effective discharge of the 
     responsibilities of the State commission with respect to such 
     proceeding.
       (b) Effect on State Law.--Nothing in this section shall 
     preempt applicable State law concerning the provision of 
     books, accounts, memoranda, or other records, or in any way 
     limit the rights of any State to obtain books, accounts, 
     memoranda, or other records, under Federal law, contract, or 
     otherwise.
       (c) Court Jurisdiction.--Any United States district court 
     located in the State in which the State commission referred 
     to in subsection (a) is located shall have jurisdiction to 
     enforce compliance with this section.

     SEC. 205. EXEMPTION AUTHORITY.

       (a) Rulemaking.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Commission shall promulgate a 
     final rule to exempt from the requirements of section 203 any 
     person that is a holding company, solely with respect to one 
     or more--
       (1) qualifying facilities under the Public Utility 
     Regulatory Policies Act of 1978;
       (2) exempt wholesale generators; or
       (3) foreign utility companies.
       (b) Other Authority.--If, upon application or upon its own 
     motion, the Commission finds that the books, accounts, 
     memoranda, and other records of any person are not relevant 
     to the jurisdictional rates of a public utility company or 
     natural gas company, or if the Commission finds that any 
     class of transactions is not relevant to the jurisdictional 
     rates of a public utility company, the Commission shall 
     exempt such person or transaction from the requirements of 
     section 203.

     SEC. 206. AFFILIATE TRANSACTIONS.

       Nothing in this subtitle shall preclude the Commission or a 
     State commission from exercising its jurisdiction under 
     otherwise applicable law to determine whether a public 
     utility company, public utility, or natural gas company may 
     recover in rates any costs of an activity performed by an 
     associate company, or any costs of goods or services acquired 
     by such public utility company, public utility, or natural 
     gas company from an associate company.

     SEC. 207. APPLICABILITY.

       No provision of this subtitle shall apply to, or be deemed 
     to include--
       (1) the United States;
       (2) a State or any political subdivision of a State;
       (3) any foreign governmental authority not operating in the 
     United States;
       (4) any agency, authority, or instrumentality of any entity 
     referred to in paragraph (1), (2), or (3); or
       (5) any officer, agent, or employee of any entity referred 
     to in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) acting as such in the course 
     of such officer, agent, or employee's official duty.

     SEC. 208. EFFECT ON OTHER REGULATIONS.

       Nothing in this subtitle precludes the Commission or a 
     State commission from exercising its jurisdiction under 
     otherwise applicable law to protect utility customers.

     SEC. 209. ENFORCEMENT.

       The Commission shall have the same powers as set forth in 
     sections 306 through 317 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 
     825e-825p) to enforce the provisions of this subtitle.

     SEC. 210. SAVINGS PROVISIONS.

       (a) In General.--Nothing in this subtitle prohibits a 
     person from engaging in or continuing to engage in activities 
     or transactions in which it is legally engaged or authorized 
     to engage on the date of enactment of this Act, if that 
     person continues to comply with the terms of any such 
     authorization, whether by rule or by order.
       (b) Effect on Other Commission Authority.--Nothing in this 
     subtitle limits the authority of the Commission under the 
     Federal

[[Page S2494]]

     Power Act (16 U.S.C. 791a and following) (including section 
     301 of that Act) or the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 and 
     following) (including section 8 of that 1 Act).

     SEC. 211. IMPLEMENTATION.

       Not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Commission shall--
       (1) promulgate such regulations as may be necessary or 
     appropriate to implement this subtitle; and
       (2) submit to Congress detailed recommendations on 
     technical and conforming amendments to Federal law necessary 
     to carry out this subtitle and the amendments made by this 
     subtitle.

     SEC. 212. TRANSFER OF RESOURCES.

       All books and records that relate primarily to the 
     functions transferred to the Commission under this subtitle 
     shall be transferred from the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission to the Commission.

     SEC. 213. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This subtitle shall take effect 12 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 214. CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL POWER ACT.

       Section 318 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 825q) is 
     repealed.

Subtitle B--Provisions Regarding The Public Utility Regulatory Policies 
                              Act of 1978

     SEC. 215. PROSPECTIVE REPEAL OF SECTION 210.

       (a) New Contracts.--After the date of enactment of this 
     Act, no electric utility shall be required to enter into a 
     new contract or obligation to purchase or to sell electric 
     energy or capacity pursuant to section 210 of the Public 
     Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 824a-
     3).
       (b) Existing Rights and Remedies not Affected.--Nothing in 
     this Act affects the rights or remedies of any party with 
     respect to the purchase or sale of electric energy or 
     capacity from or to a facility determined to be a qualifying 
     small power production facility or a qualifying cogeneration 
     facility under section 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory 
     Policies Act of 1978 pursuant to any contract or obligation 
     to purchase or to sell electric energy or capacity in effect 
     on the date of enactment of this Act, including the right to 
     recover the costs of purchasing such electric energy or 
     capacity.

     SEC. 216. RECOVERY OF COSTS.

       In order to assure recovery by electric utilities 
     purchasing electric energy or capacity from a qualifying 
     facility pursuant to any legally enforceable obligation 
     entered into or imposed pursuant to section 210 of the Public 
     Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 prior to the date of 
     enactment of this Act, of all costs associated with such 
     purchases, the Commission shall promulgate and enforce such 
     regulations as may be required to assure that no such 
     electric utility shall be required directly or indirectly to 
     absorb the costs associated with such purchases from a 
     qualifying facility. Such regulations shall be treated as a 
     rule enforceable under the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 791a-
     825r).

     SEC. 217. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this subtitle, the terms ``Commission'', 
     ``electric utility'', ``qualifying cogeneration facility'', 
     and ``qualifying small power production facility'', shall 
     have the same meanings as provided in the Public Utility 
     Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, and the term ``qualifying 
     facility'' shall mean either a qualifying small production 
     facility or a qualifying cogeneration facility as defined in 
     such Act.
   TITLE III--MARKET TRANSPARENCY, ANTI-MANIPULATION AND ENFORCEMENT

   Subtitle A--Market Transparency, Anti-Manipulation And Enforcement

     SEC. 301. MARKET TRANSPARENCY RULES.

       Part II of the Federal Power Act is amended by adding after 
     section 215 as added by this Act the following:


                 ``SEC. 216. MARKET TRANSPARENCY RULES.

       ``(a) Commission Rules.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this section, the Commission shall issue 
     rules establishing an electronic information system to 
     provide the Commission and the public with access to such 
     information as is necessary or appropriate to facilitate 
     price transparency and participation in markets subject to 
     the Commission's jurisdiction. Such systems shall provide 
     statistical information about the availability and market 
     price of wholesale electric energy and transmission services 
     to the Commission, State commissions, buyers and sellers of 
     wholesale electric energy, users of transmission services, 
     and the public on a timely basis.
       ``(b) Information Required.--The Commission shall require--
       ``(1) each regional transmission organization or, where no 
     regional transmission organization is operating, each 
     transmitting utility to provide information about the 
     available capacity of transmission facilities operated by the 
     organization or transmitting utility; and
       ``(2) each regional transmission organization or broker or 
     exchange to provide aggregate information about the amount 
     and price of physical sales of electric energy at wholesale 
     in interstate commerce it transacts.
       ``(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `broker or exchange' means an entity that matches offers to 
     sell and offers to buy physical sales of wholesale electric 
     energy in interstate commerce.
       ``(d) Protection of Sensitive Information.--The Commission 
     shall exempt from disclosure information it determines would, 
     if disclosed, be detrimental to the operation of an effective 
     market.''

     SEC. 302. MARKET MANIPULATION.

       (a) Part II of the Federal Power Act is amended by adding 
     after section 216 as added by this Act the following:

     ``SEC. 217. PROHIBITION ON FILING FALSE INFORMATION.

       ``It shall be a violation of this Act for any person 
     willfully and knowingly to report any information relating to 
     the price of electricity sold at wholesale, which information 
     the person knew to be false at the time of the reporting, to 
     any governmental or non-governmental entity and with the 
     intent to manipulate the data being compiled by such 
     entity.''

     ``SEC. 218. PROHIBITION ON ROUND TRIP TRADING.

       ``(a) Prohibition.--It shall be a violation of this Act for 
     any person willfully and knowingly to enter into any contract 
     or other arrangement to execute a ``round-trip trade'' for 
     the purchase or sale of electric energy at wholesale.
       ``(b) Definition of Round-Trip Trade.--For the purposes of 
     this section, the term `round trip trade' means a 
     transaction, or combination of transactions, in which a 
     person or other entity--
       ``(1) enters into a contract or other arrangement to 
     purchase from, or sell to, any other person or other entity 
     electric energy at wholesale;
       ``(2) simultaneously with entering into the contract or 
     arrangement described in paragraph (1), arranges a 
     financially offsetting trade with such other person or entity 
     for the same such electric energy, at the same location, 
     price, quantity and terms so that, collectively, the purchase 
     and sale transactions in themselves result in no financial 
     gain or loss; and
       ``(3) enters into the contract or arrangement with the 
     intent to deceptively affect reported revenues, trading 
     volumes, or prices.''

     SEC. 303. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Complaints.--Section 306 of the Federal Power Act (16 
     U.S.C. 825e) is amended by--
       (1) inserting ``electric utility,'' after ``Any person,''; 
     and
       (2) inserting ``transmitting utility,'' after ``licensee'' 
     each place it appears.
       (b) Investigations.--Section 307(a) of the Federal Power 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 825f(a)) is amended by inserting ``or 
     transmitting utility'' after ``any person'' in the first 
     sentence
       (c) Review of Commission Orders.--Section 313(a) of the 
     Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 8251) is amended by inserting 
     ``electric utility,'' after ``Any person,'' in the first 
     sentence.
       (d) Criminal Penalties.--Section 316 of the Federal Power 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 8250) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``$5,000'' and inserting 
     ``$1,000,000'', and by striking ``two years'' and inserting 
     ``five years'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``$500'' and inserting 
     ``$25,000''; and (3) by striking subsection (c).
       (e) Civil Penalties.--Section 316A of the Federal Power Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 8250-1) is amended--
       (1) in subsections (a) and (b), by striking ``section 211, 
     212, 213, or 214'' each place it appears and inserting ``Part 
     II''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``$10,000'' and 
     inserting ``$1,000,000''.

                   Subtitle B--Refund Effective Date

     SEC. 304. REFUND EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Section 206(b) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824e(b)) 
     is amended by--
       (1) striking ``the date 60 days after the filing of such 
     complaint nor later than 5 months after the expiration of 
     such 60-day period'' in the second sentence 28 and inserting 
     ``the date of the filing of such complaint nor later than 5 
     months after the filing of such complaint'';
       (2) striking ``60 days after'' in the third sentence and 
     inserting ``of';
       (3) striking ``expiration of such 60-day period'' in the 
     third sentence and inserting ``publication date''; and
       (4) striking the fifth sentence and inserting in lieu 
     thereof: ``If no final decision is rendered by the conclusion 
     of the 180-day period commencing upon initiation of a 
     proceeding pursuant to this section, the Commission shall 
     state the reasons why it has failed to do so and shall state 
     its best estimate as to when it reasonably expects to make 
     such decision.''
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 598. A bill to reauthorize provisions in the Native American 
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 relating to 
Native Hawaiian low-income housing and Federal loan guarantees for 
Native Hawaiian housing; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to reauthorize 
Title VIII of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act. Title VIII provides authority for the appropriation 
of funds for the construction of low-income housing for Native 
Hawaiians and further provides authority for access to loan guarantees

[[Page S2495]]

associated with the construction of housing to serve Native Hawaiians.
  Three studies have documented the acute housing needs of Native 
Hawaiians--which include the highest rates of overcrowding and 
homelessness in the State of Hawaii. Those same studies indicate that 
inadequate housing rates for Native Hawaiians are amongst the highest 
in the Nation.
  The reauthorization of Title VIII will support the continuation of 
efforts to assure that the native people of Hawaii may one day have 
access to housing opportunities that are comparable to those now 
enjoyed by other Americans.
  I would 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. 598

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

     SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION.

       Section 824 of the Native American Housing Assistance and 
     Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4243) is amended by 
     striking ``fiscal years'' and all that follows and inserting 
     ``fiscal years 2006 through 2009''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CONRAD:
  S. 601. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include 
combat pay in determining an allowable contribution to an individual 
retirement plan; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
correct an injustice in the Internal Revenue Code that is negatively 
affecting our troops.
  I recently received an e-mail from an active-duty Airman who 
expressed his dismay that he has been told the law requires him to 
withdraw the money he had contributed to an IRA previously in the year. 
Here is what he told me:

       I am an active-duty member of the military who has been 
     deployed so much that I have not paid taxes for more than a 
     year now. I also had been contributing to a Roth-IRA. I've 
     been told by tax professionals that I will have to withdraw 
     my contributions because I do not show a taxable income. I've 
     been deployed and put in harm's way many times last year and 
     I am not allowed legally to contribute to an IRA like any 
     other average American.
       This is an injustice to the soldiers that work so hard 
     under hard conditions. There are thousands of soldiers that 
     are going to be told to take their IRA contributions out 
     since they have been deployed twelve months. This is a slap 
     in the face for those soldiers who have put themselves in 
     danger.

  This injustice results from an unintended, but undeniably unjust, 
interaction between combat pay and IRA rules. Under IRA contribution 
rules, you can only contribute to a tax-favored retirement account if 
you have taxable income for the year. Military personnel deployed for a 
full calendar year or more, however, may have no taxable income because 
their earnings while serving in a combat zone are excluded from 
taxation. These troops are therefore prohibited by law from 
contributing income to an IRA because, technically, they have not 
earned taxable income.
  This is indeed an injustice. This is no way to treat the men and 
women who have been deployed to combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan 
for long periods of time. Rather than discouraging our troops from 
saving for retirement, we should take steps to ensure that they have 
the same access to tax-favored retirement savings programs as the rest 
of us.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in correcting this injustice. The bill 
I am introducing today simply amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow 
our dedicated military service men and women to contribute to lRAs, 
regardless of their deployment status.
  My bill presents an opportunity for the United States Senate to 
support retirement savings and our brave military personnel. This is a 
win-win for all involved. I hope my colleagues will join me in 
correcting this injustice and send this bill to the President for his 
quick signature.
                                 ______
                                 
  By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Mr. Bond, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Warner, Ms. 
Collins, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Nelson 
of Florida, Ms. Landrieu, Ms. Stabenow, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
Lautenberg, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Boxer, 
Mr. Dodd, Mr. Talent, Mr. Lieberman, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Lugar, 
Mr. Coleman, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Bayh, and Mr. 
Rockefeller):
  S. 602. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to fund 
breakthroughs in Alzheimer's disease research while providing more help 
to caregivers and increasing public education about prevention; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to speak of the life, 
leadership and the truly remarkable legacy of the 40th President of the 
United States, Ronald Reagan.
  President Reagan was a great communicator with a powerful message. He 
preached the gospel of hope, freedom and opportunity not just for 
America but for the world. Reagan was a genuinely optimistic person who 
brought that spirit of optimism and hope to the American people and to 
enslaved peoples around the world. He was a man who took disappointment 
and moved on. He was a man of unfailing good humor, care and 
thoughtfulness. Even people who disagreed with his policies across the 
board could not help but like him.
  In the U.S., his policies encouraged the return of more tax dollars 
to average Americans and unfettered entrepreneurship to create jobs and 
build the economy. Reagan's strong military opposition to the Soviet 
Union helped bring down the walls that harbored communism and tyranny 
throughout Eastern Europe and much of the world.
  In a letter to the American people in 1994 Ronald Reagan announced he 
was one of the millions of Americans with Alzheimer's disease. One of 
the most courageous things Ronald and Nancy Reagan did was to announce 
publicly that he had Alzheimer's disease. Through their courage and 
commitment, the former President and his wife, Nancy, changed the face 
of Alzheimer's disease by increasing public awareness of the disease 
and of the need for research into its causes and prevention.
  In honor of Ronald Reagan, today my colleague Senator Mikulski and I 
are introducing the Ronald Reagan Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act. This 
bill will increase research for Alzheimer's and increase assistance to 
Alzheimer patients and their families. This bill will serve as a living 
tribute to President Reagan and will: 1. Double funding for Alzheimer's 
Research at the National Institute of Health; 2. increase funding for 
the National Family Caregiver Support Program from $153 million to $250 
million; 3. reauthorize the Alzheimer's Demonstration Grant Program 
that provides grants to states to fill in gaps in Alzheimer's services 
such as respite care, home health care, and day care; 4. authorize $1 
million for the Safe Return Program to assist in the identification and 
safe, timely return of individuals with Alzheimer's disease and related 
dementias who wander off from their caregivers; 5. establish a public 
education campaign to educate members of the public about prevention 
techniques that can ``maintain their brain'' as they age, based on the 
current research being undertaken by NIH; 6. establish a $3,000 tax 
credit for caregivers to help with the high health costs of caring for 
a loved one at home; and 7. encourage families to prepare for their 
long term needs by providing an above-the-line tax deduction for the 
purchase of long term care insurance.
  Ironically it was President Reagan who drew national attention to 
Alzheimer's for the very first time when he launched a national 
campaign against Alzheimer's disease some 22 years ago.
  In 1983 President Reagan proclaimed November as National Alzheimer's 
Disease Month. In his proclamation President Reagan said ``the 
emotional, financial and social consequences of Alzheimer's disease are 
so devastating that it deserves special attention. Science and clinical 
medicine are striving to improve our understanding of what causes 
Alzheimer's disease and how to treat it successfully. Right now, 
research is the only hope for victims and families.''
  Today, approximately 4.5 million Americans have Alzheimer's, with 
annual costs for this disease estimated to exceed $100 billion. Today 
there are more than 4.5 million people in the United States with 
Alzheimer's, and that number is expected to grow by 70 percent by 2030 
as baby boomers age.

[[Page S2496]]

  In my home State of Missouri, alone, there are over 110,000 people 
with Alzheimer's disease. Based on population growth, unless science 
finds a way to prevent or delay the onset of this disease, that number 
will increase to over 130,000 by 2025--that is an 18 percent increase.
  In large part due to President Reagan, there has been enormous 
progress in Alzheimer research--95 percent of what we know we 
discovered during the past 15 years. There is real potential for major 
breakthroughs in the next 10 years. Baby boomers could be the first 
generation to face a future without Alzheimer's disease if we act now 
to achieve breakthroughs in science.
  President and Mrs. Reagan have been leading advocates in the fight 
against Alzheimer's for more than 20 years, and millions of Americans 
have been helped by their dedication, compassion and effort to support 
caregivers, raise public awareness about Alzheimer's disease and 
increase of nation's commitment to Alzheimer's research.
  This bill will serve as a living tribute to President Reagan and will 
offer hope to all those suffering from the disease today. As we 
celebrate the life and legacy of Ronald Reagan, we are inspired by his 
legendary optimism and hope, and today we move forward to confront this 
expanding public health crisis with renewed vigor, passion, and 
compassion.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as the Senate co-chair of the Bipartisan 
Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease, I am pleased to join Senators Bond 
and Mikulski in introducing the Ronald Reagan Alzheimer's Breakthrough 
Act of 2005.
  Alzheimer's is a devastating disease that takes a tremendous personal 
and economic toll on both the individual and the family. As someone 
whose family has experienced the pain of Alzheimer's, I know that there 
is no more helpless feeling than to watch the progression of this 
dreadful disease. It is an agonizing experience to look into the eyes 
of a loved one only to receive a confused look in return.
  Ronald Reagan had a profound effect on our Nation in many ways during 
his Presidency. But what many of us will remember most is the grace and 
dignity with which he and his wife Nancy faced the final battle against 
Alzheimer's--the one campaign they knew he wouldn't win.
  Ironically, it was President Reagan who first drew national attention 
to Alzheimer's disease when he launched a national campaign against the 
disease some 22 years ago. In 1983, President Reagan proclaimed 
November as National Alzheimer's Disease Month. In his proclamation, 
President Reagan said: ``The emotional, financial and social 
consequences of Alzheimer's disease are so devastating that it deserves 
attention. Science and clinical medicine are striving to improve our 
understanding of what causes Alzheimer's disease and how to treat it 
successfully. Right now, research is the only hope for victims and 
their families.''
  An estimated 4.5 million Americans have Alzheimer's disease, more 
than double the number in 1980. Moreover, Alzheimer's disease costs the 
United States more than $100 billion a year, primarily in nursing home 
and other long-term care costs. This figure will only increase 
exponentially as the baby boom generation ages. As the baby boomers 
move into the years of highest risk for Alzheimer's disease, a strong 
and sustained research effort is our best tool to slow down the 
progression and prevent the onset of this terrible disease.

  Our investments in Alzheimer's disease research have begun to pay 
dividends. Effective treatments for Alzheimer's disease and a possible 
vaccine are tantalizingly within our grasp. Moreover, if scientists can 
find a way to delay the onset of this devastating disease for even five 
years, our Nation will save at least $50 billion in annual health and 
long-term care costs and an incalculable amount in human suffering.
  If we are to keep up the momentum we have established, we must 
increase our investment in Alzheimer's disease research. Millions of 
Americans, including the families of Alzheimer patients, are profoundly 
grateful for our historic accomplishment of doubling funding for 
biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health. We have made 
tremendous progress, but more must be done. The bill we are introducing 
today therefore doubles the authorization levels for Alzheimer's 
research at the NIH from the current funding level of $700 million to 
$1.4 million.
  In addition to increasing funding for research, our bill provides 
much needed support for Alzheimer's patients and their families by 
increasing funding for the National Family Caregiver Support Program 
and by providing a tax credit of up to $3,000 to help families meet the 
costs of caring for a loved one with long-term care needs.
  The Ronald Reagan Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act of 2005 will serve as 
a living tribute to President Reagan and will offer hope to all of 
those suffering from the disease today. It is now time for Congress to 
pick up the banner and pass this important legislation, and I urge all 
of my colleagues to sign on as cosponsors.

                          ____________________