[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 41 (Monday, April 11, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3416-S3434]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 743. A bill for the relief of Nabil Raja Dandan, Ketty Dandan,
Souzi Dandan, Raja Nabil Dandan, and Sandra Dandan; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 743
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR NABIL RAJA DANDAN,
KETTY DANDAN, SOUZI DANDAN, RAJA NABIL DANDAN,
AND SANDRA DANDAN.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of
section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Nabil
Raja Dandan, Ketty Dandan, Souzi Dandan, Raja Nabil Dandan,
and Sandra Dandan shall each be eligible for issuance of an
immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an
alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon filing
an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under
section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful
permanent resident.
(b) Adjustment of Status.--If Nabil Raja Dandan, Ketty
Dandan, Souzi Dandan, Raja Nabil Dandan, and Sandra Dandan
enter the United States before the filing deadline specified
in subsection (c), Nabil Raja Dandan, Ketty Dandan, Souzi
Dandan, Raja Nabil Dandan, and Sandra Dandan shall each be
considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall be
eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--
Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the application
for issuance of an immigrant visa or the application for
adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees within 2
years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting
of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to Nabil Raja
Dandan, Ketty Dandan, Souzi Dandan, Raja Nabil Dandan, and
Sandra Dandan, the Secretary of State shall instruct the
proper officer to reduce by 5, during the current or next
following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas
that are made available to natives of the country of the
aliens' birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the
country of the aliens' birth under section 202(e) of such
Act.
______
By Mr. BYRD (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Kerry, and Mr.
Bingaman):
S. 745. A bill to amend the Global Environmental Protection
Assistance Act of 1989 to promote international clean energy
development, to open and expand clean energy markets abroad, to engage
developing nations in the advancement of sustainable energy use and
climate change actions, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the International
Clean Energy Deployment and Global Energy Markets Investment Act of
2005. This is a forward-thinking, made-in-America action plan that can
serve as a building block that puts the right structure and mechanisms
in place, mobilizes the necessary resources, and helps define the
course we will have to take in order to better design the global energy
system that will be built in coming decades. But let me also state up
front what this legislation does not do. It is not intended to be a
substitute for the need to seek globally binding climate change
agreements that would include commitments from the largest industrial
and developing country emitters of greenhouse gases. However, my
legislation can serve as a meaningful first step to seriously engage
developing countries in tackling the critical link between our mutual
energy and climate change challenges. Additionally, such engagement can
be a new cornerstone for the U.S. to demonstrate that we are committed
to working with other nations on a broad range of international issues.
We must start by honestly addressing several bottom line issues. We
know that the world's population will likely grow by about 50 percent
during this century, and those people, most of whom will live in
developing nations, will be seeking the necessary resources to live.
These nations will be growing rapidly and their requirements for energy
will follow suit for the foreseeable future. But at the same time, we
know that growth needs to be undertaken in as clean and efficient a
manner as possible. When economies heat up so does energy use,
greenhouse gas emissions, and that global change. How can any nation's
economy continue to grow and provide good jobs in a way that does not
undermine its environment and vice versa? How do we find ways to
address these problems of mutual concern for our citizens and for their
children and grandchildren? These issues matter as much in the United
States as they do in places in China, India, Brazil, and Mexico.
This legislation's journey began several years when I included, in
the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, language
that called for a clean energy exports and market development strategic
plan. The Bush administration sent that report to Congress in October
2002. Since that time, I have been urging, cajoling, and pushing
Federal agencies like the Department of State, Department of Energy,
Department of Commerce, and the U.S. Agency for International
Development to cooperate more and increase public/private efforts to
help export U.S. clean energy technologies and open more of these
markets abroad. It is now time to take the next step and introduce this
legislation in order to expand upon that foundation.
By taking this next step, I am suggesting that we must work together
to develop a broad-based action plan that builds on American ingenuity,
encourages the export of made-in-America clean energy technologies,
helps advance developing country climate change engagement, increases
international sustainable development, and strengthens interagency and
public/private cooperation. The objectives of this legislation further
include efforts to increase access to clean and reliable energy
services, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase energy security,
and integrate these goals in a manner that is consistent with U.S.
foreign policy interests around the world. Finally, my legislation
essentially codifies and enhances the administrative structure that has
already been put in place.
On a related but separate note, I am very aware that on February 16,
2005, the Kyoto Protocol came into force. As the primary author of
Senate Resolution 98, which passed unanimously in 1997, I worked to
establish core principles which should be part of any future binding,
international climate change agreement. Those principles were that a
treaty should be cost effective and should include the participation of
developing nations, especially the largest emitters. The Kyoto Protocol
does not meet those principles for the United States.
There have been widely varying interpretations of that resolution,
especially by the Bush administration. The Byrd-Hagel resolution was
intended to guide our Nation's role in international negotiations, not
kill that effort. It was meant to strengthen the hand of
[[Page S3417]]
any administration as it sat at the international negotiating table,
but this White House has used the Senate's vote as an excuse to totally
abandon the negotiations and offer, instead, only hollow alternatives.
Yet, it is the height of hypocrisy for the Bush administration to claim
that it is defending that resolution's principles when, as a matter of
fact, it has disregarded its very purpose.
That Senate resolution directed that any climate change treaty
include commitments for the developing world, like China and India,
which will surpass the U.S. in greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. These
commitments could lead to real reductions. An international treaty with
binding commitments also could allow for developing countries'
continued economic growth with relatively modest requirements at first,
pacing upwards, with ultimate goals to be achieved over time.
Moreover, given their expected economic growth and energy demands,
developing nations are a primary market for clean energy technologies.
But, this multi-billion dollar window of opportunity could close for
the United States. With little pressure on developing countries to
reduce or contain their emissions growth, these potentially enormous
markets for clean energy technologies, made in the U.S., could slip
away. Thus, my legislation can serve as a commonsense foot-in-the-door
to help jump start efforts to seek fair and effective globally binding
agreements in the future.
Despite this, the President has clearly stated that the U.S. would
only pursue voluntary measures both domestically and internationally,
and he continues to follow that path despite the fact that no major
environmental problem has ever been solved by a purely voluntary basis.
Since retreating from the international forum, his own climate change
program is a strong testament to prove that voluntary actions are not
likely to result in any serious decrease in overall emissions. While
global climate change is long-term problem, it does not mean that we
can put off action indefinitely. If we wait for decades to take more
significant actions, then more radical measures will likely be
necessary.
Additionally, I have long said that the U.S. needs a comprehensive,
national energy strategy that has bipartisan support. A serious energy
efficiency program, bolstered by the promotion of renewable energy and
other clean home-grown energy sources, provides a compass point for a
U.S. energy strategy. At its core, we must rely on our nation's
domestic energy assets, especially coal. Coal must become a primary
fuel source for new energy demands into the 21st century. However, to
do so requires that we think differently about coal.
It is a myth to say that the U.S. or other major nations like China
and India will stop burning coal any time soon. Yet, we must begin to
treat this plentiful resource like black gold and use it in a much
cleaner and more efficient way. We must accelerate the deployment of
commercial-scale technologies that move us away from simply burning
coal toward the enhanced ability to transform coal into a variety of
energy products. We can begin to meet this challenge by demonstrating
and deploying advanced power generation, especially coal gasification
and carbon sequestration technologies, as well as by producing
synthetic fuels and, eventually, hydrogen for use in other sectors of
the economy. This broad approach also requires sending strong and clear
regulatory and market signals which can significantly reconcile
numerous environmental and climate change concerns, stimulate
technology deployment, and set the stage for coal into the future.
The path that I am proposing here today goes far beyond the energy
proposals that this White House has offered. Pursuing this course will
take steadfast leadership, hard work, and American ingenuity to move
forward in a responsible, balanced, and intelligent way. It is time for
industry, labor, academic, environmental, and community interests to
work with policymakers to find common ground. Commonsense market-based
and regulatory approaches, emerging technology platforms, and new
policy perspectives can bring these divergent groups together.
I believe it is time to send the message that there will likely be a
binding carbon management regime in place for the U.S. at some point in
the future. It may not be in place tomorrow or the next day or even in
the next 2 to 4 years. It may also be a modest approach initially, but
it is on the horizon. We certainly cannot run until we have walked, and
we cannot walk until we have taken a step. But we can no longer stand
still forever. By acting boldly, we can champion a new energy and
environmental legacy that will benefit all the world's citizens.
With regard to my legislation's introduction today, our Nation must
recognize the incredible impact that U.S. technologies and ideas can
have in helping to meet other nations' energy needs in a more
sustainable way. We must work to open and expand international markets
for a range of U.S. clean energy technologies and simultaneously
address global energy security, economic, trade, and environmental
objectives.
I thank you for this opportunity and hope this legislation will
receive serious consideration. I urge Members to see this as a key
component of the architecture that will be necessary if we ever hope to
seriously tackle the tough energy and environment issues before us as
well as a way to enhance our broader foreign policy and climate change
efforts around the world.
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. 745
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 ``International Clean Energy
Deployment and Global Energy Markets Investment Act of
2005''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to strengthen the cooperation of the United States with
developing countries in addressing critical energy needs and
global climate change;
(2) to promote sustainable economic development, increase
access to modern energy services, reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, and strengthen energy security and independence in
developing countries through the deployment of clean energy
technologies;
(3) to facilitate the export of clean energy technologies
to developing countries;
(4) to reduce the trade deficit of the United States
through the export of United States energy technologies and
technological expertise;
(5) to retain and create manufacturing and related service
jobs in the United States;
(6) to integrate the objectives described in paragraphs (1)
through (5) in a manner consistent with interests of the
United States, into the foreign policy of the United States;
(7) to authorize funds for clean energy development
activities in developing countries; and
(8) to ensure that activities funded under part C of title
VII of the Global Environmental Protection Assistance Act of
1989 (as added by section 3) contribute to economic growth,
poverty reduction, good governance, the rule of law, property
rights, and environmental protection.
SEC. 3. CLEAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT IN DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES.
Title VII of the Global Environmental Protection Assistance
Act of 1989 (Public Law 101-240; 103 Stat. 2521) is amending
by adding at the end the following:
``PART C--CLEAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
``SEC. 731. DEFINITIONS.
``In this part:
``(1) Clean energy technology.--The term `clean energy
technology' means an energy supply or end-use technology
that, over its lifecycle and compared to a similar technology
already in commercial use in any developing country--
``(A) is reliable, affordable, economically viable,
socially acceptable, and compatible with the needs and norms
of the host country;
``(B) results in--
``(i) reduced emissions of greenhouse gases; or
``(ii) increased geological sequestration; and
``(C) may--
``(i) substantially lower emissions of air pollutants; and
``(ii) generate substantially smaller or less hazardous
quantities of solid or liquid waste.
``(2) Department.--The term `Department' means the
Department of State.
``(3) Developing country.--
``(A) In general.--The term `developing country' means any
country not listed in Annex I of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change, done at New York on May 9,
1992.
``(B) Inclusion.--The term `developing country' may include
a country with an
[[Page S3418]]
economy in transition, as determined by the Secretary.
``(4) Geological sequestration.--The term `geological
sequestration' means the capture and long-term storage in a
geological formation of a greenhouse gas from an energy
producing facility, which prevents the release of greenhouse
gases into the atmosphere.
``(5) Greenhouse gas.--The term `greenhouse gas' means--
``(A) carbon dioxide;
``(B) methane;
``(C) nitrous oxide;
``(D) hydrofluorocarbons;
``(E) perfluorocarbons; and
``(F) sulfur hexafluoride.
``(6) Institution of higher education.--The term
`institution of higher education' has the meaning given the
term in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1001(a)).
``(7) Interagency working group.--The term `Interagency
Working Group' means the Interagency Working Group on Clean
Energy Technology Exports established under section
732(b)(1)(A).
``(8) National laboratory.--The term `National Laboratory'
means any of the following laboratories owned by the
Department of Energy:
``(A) Ames Laboratory.
``(B) Argonne National Laboratory.
``(C) Brookhaven National Laboratory.
``(D) Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.
``(E) Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory.
``(F) Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
``(G) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
``(H) Los Alamos National Laboratory.
``(I) National Energy Technology Laboratory.
``(J) National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
``(K) Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
``(L) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
``(M) Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory.
``(N) Sandia National Laboratories.
``(O) Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.
``(P) Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility.
``(9) Qualifying project.--The term `qualifying project'
means a project meeting the criteria established under
section 735(b).
``(10) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of State.
``(11) State.--The term `State' means--
``(A) a State;
``(B) the District of Columbia;
``(C) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and
``(D) any other territory or possession of the United
States.
``(12) Strategy.--The term `Strategy' means the strategy
established under section 733.
``(13) Task force.--The term `Task Force' means the Task
Force on International Clean Energy Cooperation established
under section 732(a).
``(14) United states.--The term `United States', when used
in a geographical sense, means all of the States.
``SEC. 732. ORGANIZATION.
``(a) Task Force.--
``(1) Establishment.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of enactment of this part, the President shall establish a
Task Force on International Clean Energy Cooperation.
``(2) Composition.--The Task Force shall be composed of--
``(A) the Secretary, who shall serve as Chairperson; and
``(B) representatives, appointed by the head of the
respective Federal agency, of--
``(i) the Department of Commerce;
``(ii) the Department of the Treasury;
``(iii) the Department of Energy;
``(iv) the Environmental Protection Agency;
``(v) the United States Agency for International
Development;
``(vi) the Export-Import Bank;
``(vii) the Overseas Private Investment Corporation;
``(viii) the Trade and Development Agency;
``(ix) the Small Business Administration;
``(x) the Office of United States Trade Representative; and
``(xi) other Federal agencies, as determined by the
President.
``(3) Duties.--
``(A) Lead agency.--The Task Force shall act as the lead
agency in the development and implementation of strategy
under section 733.
``(B) Coordination and implementation.--The Task Force
shall support the coordination and implementation of programs
under sections 1331, 1332, and 1608 of the Energy Policy Act
of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13361, 13362, 13387).
``(4) Termination.--The Task Force, including any working
group established by the Task Force, shall terminate on
January 1, 2016.
``(b) Working Groups.--
``(1) Establishment.--The Task Force--
``(A) shall establish an Interagency Working Group on Clean
Energy Technology Exports; and
``(B) may establish other working groups as necessary to
carry out this part.
``(2) Composition of interagency working group.--The
Interagency Working Group shall be composed of--
``(A) the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Commerce,
and the Administrator of the United States Agency for
International Development, who shall jointly serve as
Chairpersons; and
``(B) other members, as determined by the Task Force.
``(c) Interagency Center.--
``(1) Establishment.--There is established an Interagency
Center in the Office of International Energy Market
Development of the Department of Energy.
``(2) Duties.--The Interagency Center shall--
``(A) assist the Interagency Working Group in carrying out
this part; and
``(B) perform such other duties as are determined to be
appropriate by the Secretary of Energy.
``SEC. 733. STRATEGY.
``(a) Initial Strategy.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this part, the Task Force shall develop and
submit to the President a Strategy to--
``(A) support the development and implementation of
programs and policies in developing countries to promote the
adoption of clean energy technologies and energy efficiency
technologies and strategies, with an emphasis on those
developing countries that are expected to experience the most
significant growth in energy production and use over the next
20 years;
``(B) open and expand clean energy technology markets and
facilitate the export of clean energy technology to
developing countries, in a manner consistent with the subsidy
codes of the World Trade Organization;
``(C) integrate into the foreign policy objectives of the
United States the promotion of--
``(i) clean energy technology deployment and reduced
greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries; and
``(ii) clean energy technology exports;
``(D) establish a pilot program that provides financial
assistance for qualifying projects; and
``(E) develop financial mechanisms and instruments
(including securities that mitigate the political and foreign
exchange risks of uses that are consistent with the foreign
policy of the United States by combining the private sector
market and government enhancements) that--
``(i) are cost-effective; and
``(ii) facilitate private capital investment in clean
energy technology projects in developing countries.
``(2) Transmission to congress.--On receiving the Strategy
from the Task Force under paragraph (1), the President shall
transmit to Congress the Strategy.
``(b) Updates.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
submission of the initial Strategy under subsection (a)(1),
and every 2 years thereafter--
``(A) the Task Force shall--
``(i) review and update the Strategy; and
``(ii) report the results of the review and update to the
President; and
``(B) the President shall submit to Congress a report on
the Strategy.
``(2) Inclusions.--The report shall include--
``(A) the updated Strategy;
``(B) a description of the assistance provided under this
part;
``(C) the results of the pilot projects carried out under
this part, including a comparative analysis of the relative
merits of each pilot project;
``(D) the activities and progress reported by developing
countries to the Department under section 736(b)(2); and
``(E) the activities and progress reported towards meeting
the goals established under section 736(b)(2).
``(c) Content.--In developing, updating, and submitting a
report on the Strategy, the Task Force shall--
``(1) assess--
``(A) energy trends, energy needs, and potential energy
resource bases in developing countries; and
``(B) the implications of the trends and needs for domestic
and global economic and security interests;
``(2) analyze technology, policy, and market opportunities
for international development, demonstration, and deployment
of clean energy technologies and strategies;
``(3) examine relevant trade, tax, finance, international,
and other policy issues to assess what policies, in the
United States and in developing countries, would help open
markets and improve clean energy technology exports of the
United States in support of--
``(A) enhancing energy innovation and cooperation,
including energy sector and market reform, capacity building,
and financing measures;
``(B) improving energy end-use efficiency technologies
(including buildings and facilities) and vehicle, industrial,
and co-generation technology initiatives; and
``(C) promoting energy supply technologies, including
fossil, nuclear, and renewable technology initiatives;
``(4) investigate issues associated with building capacity
to deploy clean energy technology in developing countries,
including--
``(A) energy-sector reform;
``(B) creation of open, transparent, and competitive
markets for clean energy technologies;
``(C) the availability of trained personnel to deploy and
maintain clean energy technology; and
[[Page S3419]]
``(D) demonstration and cost-buydown mechanisms to promote
first adoption of clean energy technology;
``(5) establish priorities for promoting the diffusion and
adoption of clean energy technologies and strategies in
developing countries, taking into account economic and
security interests of the United States and opportunities for
the export of technology of the United States;
``(6) identify the means of integrating the priorities
established under paragraph (5) into bilateral, multilateral,
and assistance activities and commitments of the United
States;
``(7) establish methodologies for the measurement,
monitoring, verification, and reporting under section
736(b)(2) of the greenhouse gas emission impacts of clean
energy projects and policies in developing countries;
``(8) establish a registry that is accessible to the public
through electronic means (including through the Internet) in
which information reported under section 736(b)(2) shall be
collected;
``(9) make recommendations to the heads of appropriate
Federal agencies on ways to streamline Federal programs and
policies to improve the role of the agencies in the
international development, demonstration, and deployment of
clean energy technology;
``(10) make assessments and recommendations regarding the
distinct technological, market, regional, and stakeholder
challenges necessary to deploy clean energy technology;
``(11) recommend conditions and criteria that will help
ensure that funds provided by the United States promote sound
energy policies in developing countries while simultaneously
opening their markets and exporting clean energy technology
of the United States;
``(12) establish an advisory committee, composed of
representatives of the private sector and other interested
groups, on the export and deployment of clean energy
technology;
``(13) establish a coordinated mechanism for disseminating
information to the private sector and the public on clean
energy technologies and clean energy technology transfer
opportunities; and
``(14) monitor the progress of each Federal agency in
promoting the purposes of this part, in accordance with--
``(A) the 5-year strategic plan submitted to Congress in
October 2002; and
``(B) other applicable law.
``SEC. 734. CLEAN ENERGY ASSISTANCE TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.
``(a) In General.--Subject to section 736, the Secretary
may provide assistance to developing countries for activities
that are consistent with the priorities established in the
Strategy.
``(b) Assistance.--The assistance may be provided through--
``(1) the Millennium Challenge Corporation established
under section 604(a) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003
(22 U.S.C. 7703(a));
``(2) the Global Village Energy Partnership; and
``(3) other international assistance programs or activities
of--
``(A) the Department;
``(B) the United States Agency for International
Development; and
``(C) other Federal agencies.
``(c) Eligible Activities.--The activities supported under
this section include--
``(1) development of national action plans and policies
to--
``(A) facilitate the provision of clean energy services and
the adoption of energy efficiency measures;
``(B) identify linkages between the use of clean energy
technologies and the provision of agricultural,
transportation, water, health, educational, and other
development-related services; and
``(C) integrate the use of clean energy technologies into
national strategies for economic growth, poverty reduction,
and sustainable development;
``(2) strengthening of public and private sector capacity
to--
``(A) assess clean energy needs and options;
``(B) identify opportunities to reduce, avoid, or sequester
greenhouse gas emissions;
``(C) establish enabling policy frameworks;
``(D) develop and access financing mechanisms; and
``(E) monitor progress in implementing clean energy and
greenhouse gas reduction strategies;
``(3) enactment and implementation of market-favoring
measures to promote commercial-based energy service provision
and to improve the governance, efficiency, and financial
performance of the energy sector; and
``(4) development and use of innovative public and private
mechanisms to catalyze and leverage financing for clean
energy technologies, including use of the development credit
authority of the United States Agency for International
Development and credit enhancements through the Export-Import
Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.
``SEC. 735. PILOT PROGRAM FOR DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.
``(a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this part, the Secretary, in consultation with
the Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the United
States Agency for International Development, shall, by
regulation, establish a pilot program that provides financial
assistance for qualifying projects consistent with the
Strategy and the performance criteria established under
section 736.
``(b) Qualifying Projects.--To be qualified to receive
assistance under this section, a project shall--
``(1) be a project--
``(A) to construct an energy production facility in a
developing country for the production of energy to be
consumed in the developing country; or
``(B) to improve the efficiency of energy use in a
developing country;
``(2) be a project that--
``(A) is submitted by a firm of the United States to the
Secretary in accordance with procedures established by the
Secretary by regulation;
``(B) meets the requirements of section 1608(k) of the
Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13387(k));
``(C) uses technology that has been successfully developed
or deployed in the United States; and
``(D) is selected by the Secretary without regard to the
developing country in which the project is located, with
notice of the selection published in the Federal Register;
and
``(3) when deployed, result in a greenhouse gas emission
reduction (when compared to the technology that would
otherwise be deployed) of at least--
``(A) in the case of a unit or energy-efficiency measure
placed in service during the period beginning on the date of
enactment of this part and ending on December 31, 2009, 20
percentage points;
``(B) in the case of a unit or energy-efficiency measure
placed in service during the period beginning on January 1,
2010, and ending on December 31, 2019, 40 percentage points;
and
``(C) in the case of a unit or energy-efficiency measure
placed in service after December 31, 2019, 60 percentage
points.
``(c) Financial Assistance.--
``(1) In general.--For each qualifying project selected by
the Secretary to participate in the pilot program, the
Secretary shall make a loan or loan guarantee available for
not more than 50 percent of the total cost of the project.
``(2) Interest rate.--The interest rate on a loan made
under this subsection shall be equal to the current average
yield on outstanding obligations of the United States with
remaining periods of maturity comparable to the maturity of
the loan.
``(3) Host country contribution.--To be eligible for a loan
or loan guarantee for a project in a host country under this
subsection, the host country shall--
``(A) make at least a 10 percent contribution toward the
total cost of the project; and
``(B) verify to the Secretary (using the methodology
established under section 733(c)(7)) the quantity of annual
greenhouse gas emissions reduced, avoided, or sequestered as
a result of the deployment of the project.
``(4) Capacity building research.--
``(A) In general.--A proposal made for a qualifying project
may include a research component intended to build
technological capacity within the host country.
``(B) Research.--To be eligible for a loan or loan
guarantee under this paragraph, the research shall--
``(i) be related to the technology being deployed; and
``(ii) involve--
``(I) an institution in the host country; and
``(II) a participant from the United States that is an
industrial entity, an institution of higher education, or a
National Laboratory.
``(C) Host country contribution.--To be eligible for a loan
or loan guarantee for research in a host country under this
paragraph, the host country shall make at least a 50 percent
contribution toward the total cost of the research.
``(5) Grants.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the United
States Agency for International Development, may, at the
request of the United States ambassador to a host country,
make grants to help address and overcome specific, urgent,
and unforeseen obstacles in the implementation of a
qualifying project.
``(B) Maximum amount.--The total amount of a grant made for
a qualifying project under this paragraph may not exceed
$1,000,000.
``SEC. 736. PERFORMANCE CRITERIA FOR MAJOR ENERGY CONSUMERS.
``(a) Identification of Major Energy Consumers.--Not later
than 1 year after the date of enactment of this part, the
Task Force shall identify those developing countries that, by
virtue of present and projected energy consumption, represent
the predominant share of energy use among developing
countries.
``(b) Performance Criteria.--As a condition of accepting
assistance provided under sections 734 and 735, any
developing country identified under subsection (a) shall--
``(1) meet the eligibility criteria established under
section 607 of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22
U.S.C. 7706), notwithstanding the eligibility of the
developing country as a candidate country under section 606
of that Act (22 U.S.C. 7705); and
``(2) agree to establish and report on progress in meeting
specific goals for reduced energy-related greenhouse gas
emissions and specific goals for--
[[Page S3420]]
``(A) increased access to clean energy services among
unserved and underserved populations;
``(B) increased use of renewable energy resources;
``(C) increased use of lower greenhouse gas-emitting fossil
fuel-burning technologies;
``(D) more efficient production and use of energy;
``(E) greater reliance on advanced energy technologies;
``(F) the sustainable use of traditional energy resources;
or
``(G) other goals for improving energy-related
environmental performance, including the reduction or
avoidance of local air and water quality and solid waste
contaminants.
``SEC. 737. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this part for each of fiscal years
2006 through 2015.''.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 746. A bill to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
participate in the Inland Empire regional recycling project and in the
Cucamonga Valley Water District recycling project; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
to authorize the Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling initiative to
be part of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI program. These
water recycling projects will produce approximately 100,000 acre-feet
of new water annually in one of the most rapidly growing regions in the
United States.
The legislation would authorize two project components: the first of
which will be constructed by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, IEUA
and will produce approximately 90,000 acre feet of new water annually.
The second of these projects, to be constructed by the Cucamonga Valley
Water District CVWD, will produce an additional 5,000 acre feet of new
water annually. Combined, approximately 100,000 acre feet of new water
would be produced locally by 2010, reducing the need for imported water
from the Colorado River and northern California through the California
Water Project.
Significantly, the Federal cost share is only 10 percent of the
upfront capital costs.
We must continue to approve measures preventing water supply
shortages in the Western United States. The Inland Empire region is one
of the fastest growing areas in the nation. This legislation means that
the Inland Empire will use less water from the Colorado River and
northern California, and the bill will have other benefits like
improved water quality, energy savings, and job creation.
The development of recycled water has enormous capacity to produce
significant amounts of water, and have it ``on line'' in a relatively
short period of time. Recycled water provides our State and region with
the ability to ``stretch'' existing water supplies significantly and in
so doing, minimize conflict and address the many needs that exist.
According to the State of California's Recycled Water Task Force, water
recycling is a critical part of California's water future with an
estimated 1.5 million acre-feet of new supplies being developed over
the next 25 years.
Today's Commissioner of Reclamation said it best when, in a speech to
the WateReuse Association he declared that recycled water is ``the last
river to tap.''
IEUA produces recycled water for a variety of non-potable purposes,
such as landscape irrigation, agricultural irrigation, construction,
and industrial cooling. By replacing these water-intensive applications
with high-quality recycled water, fresh water can be conserved or used
for drinking, thereby reducing the dependence on expensive imported
water.
As we look into the future, it is appropriate that we are guided by
lessons from the recent past. In the late 1980's, California confronted
a sustained, multi-year drought. It was so serious that some observed
that our State had 6-year-old first graders who had never seen ``green
grass.'' California faced a crisis and water agencies and water
districts, particularly in Southern California found a solution--
recycled water.
In 1991, the Secretary of the Interior in President George H.W.
Bush's administration, Manual Lujan, recognized that California was
receiving more water from the Colorado River than its allocation. The
Interior Secretary looked into the future and saw a day when California
would get its allocation--4.4. million acre-feet, but no longer would
it get up to 800,000 acre-feet of ``surplus flows.'' As is well known,
that day has arrived.
For any political leader, it's always a tremendous challenge to look
into the future and design programs and solutions to a crisis.
Secretary Lujan did exactly that. In August 1991, he launched the
Southern California Water Initiative, a program to evaluate and study
the feasibility of water reclamation projects. Mr. Lujan's vision was
to build replacement water capacity to offset the anticipated Colorado
River water supply reductions. In this endeavor, Secretary Lujan was
assisted by then Commissioner of Reclamation Dennis Underwood. Last
week, Mr. Underwood was selected by the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California, MWD, board of directors as their new general
manager and CEO.
Congress saw the wisdom of the Lujan initiative too. Congress, in
1992, was completing work on major water legislation. The Lujan
initiative, a year after it was first announced, became Title XVI, the
Bureau of Reclamation water recycling program that today serves the
entire West, not just California. Today, water recycling is an
essential water supply element in Albuquerque, Phoenix, Denver, Salt
Lake City, Tucson, El Paso, San Antonio, Portland and other western
metropolitan areas.
The Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative has the support
of all member agencies of IEUA, as well as the water agencies
downstream in Orange County. IEUA encompasses approximately 242 square
miles and serves the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, Fontana, through the
Fontana Water Company, Ontario, Upland, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga
through the Cucamonga Valley Water District, and the Monte Vista Water
District.
This bill is also supported by and fully consistent with the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, MWD's Integrated
Resource Plan, Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, SAWPA's
Integrated Watershed Plan, and the Chino Basin Watermaster's Optimum
Basin Management Plan, Inland Empire Utility Agency's Feasibility
Study, Cucamonga Valley Water District's ``Every Drop Counts'' Urban
Water Reuse Management Strategy, the Bureau of Reclamation's Southern
California Comprehensive Water Recycling and Reuse Feasibility Study,
the State of California's Water Recycling Task Force, the WateReuse
Association, the Association of California Water Agencies, ACWA and the
U.S. Department of the Interior's Water 2025 Initiative.
Environmental groups such as the Mono Lake Committee, Environmental
Defense, Clean Water and Natural Resources Defense Council strongly
support recycling projects. Business leaders such as Southern Cal
Edison and Building Industry Association also support these water
recycling projects.
These projects were authorized for feasibility study in Public Law
102-575, Title XVI, Section 1606, the Southern California Comprehensive
Water Recycling and Reuse Feasibility Study in 1992. The State of
California, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, SAWPA
and others provided $3 million of the $6 million required for the
regional feasibility study of which these projects were one part.
Detailed Feasibility Studies and environmentally reports have been
prepared and approved by both agencies and certified by the State of
California.
Congressman David Dreier introduced identical legislation in the
House in the 108th Congress. The House Resources Committee and then the
House of Representatives both passed the bill unanimously.
His bill is cosponsored by Representatives Gary Miller, Grace
Napolitano, Ken Calvert and Joe Baca.
And these valuable recycling projects would never have progressed at
all without the hard work and dedication of Mr. Robert DeLoach, general
manager of the Cucamonga Valley Water District, and Mr. Rich Atwater,
CEO and general manager of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent
that the
[[Page S3421]]
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. 746
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. INLAND EMPIRE AND CUCAMONGA VALLEY RECYCLING
PROJECTS.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Inland
Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative''.
(b) In General.--The Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating the second section 1636 (as added by
section 1(b) of Public Law 108-316 (118 Stat. 1202)) as
section 1637; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 1638. INLAND EMPIRE REGIONAL WATER RECYCLING PROJECT.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the
Inland Empire Utilities Agency, may participate in the
design, planning, and construction of the Inland Empire
regional water recycling project described in the report
submitted under section 1606(c).
``(b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of the
project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25
percent of the total cost of the project.
``(c) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall
not be used for operation and maintenance of the project
described in subsection (a).
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000.
``SEC. 1639. CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER RECYCLING PROJECT.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the
Cucamonga Valley Water District, may participate in the
design, planning, and construction of the Cucamonga Valley
Water District satellite recycling plants in Rancho
Cucamonga, California, to reclaim and recycle approximately 2
million gallons per day of domestic wastewater.
``(b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of the
project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25
percent of the capital cost of the project.
``(c) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall
not be used for operation and maintenance of the project
described in subsection (a).
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section, $10,000,000.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--The table of sections in
section 2 of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and
Adjustment Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. prec. 371) is amended by
striking the item relating to the second section 1636 (as
added by section 2 of Public Law 108-316 (118 Stat. 1202))
and inserting the following:
``Sec. 1637. Williamson County, Texas, Water Recycling and Reuse
Project.
``Sec. 1638. Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Program.
``Sec. 1639. Cucamonga Valley Water Recycling Project.''.
______
By Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Grassley, and Ms.
Stabenow):
S. 749. A bill to amend the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act
to establish a governmentwide policy requiring competition in certain
executive agency procurements, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Craig
Thomas, Chuck Grassley and Debbie Stabenow in introducing the Federal
Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act. Our bill is based on
a straightforward premise: it is unfair for Federal Prison Industries
to deny businesses in the private sector an opportunity to compete for
sales to their own government.
We have made immeasurable progress on this issue since I first
introduced a similar bill ten years ago. It may seem incredible, but at
that time, Federal Prison Industries (FPI) could bar private sector
companies from competing for a federal contract. Under the law
establishing Federal Prison Industries, if Federal Prison Industries
said that it wanted a contract, it would get that contract, regardless
whether a company in the private sector could provide the product
better, cheaper, or faster.
Four years ago, the Senate took a giant step toward addressing this
inequity when we voted 74-24 to end Federal Prison Industries' monopoly
on Department of Defense contracts. Not only was that provision enacted
into law, we were able to strengthen it with a second provision in last
year's defense bill. Last year, we took another important step,
enacting an appropriations provision which extends the DOD rules to
other Federal agencies. This means that, for the first time, private
sector companies should be able to compete against for contracts
awarded by all Federal agencies.
Despite this progress, work remains to be done. We have heard reports
from federal procurement officials and from small businesses that FPI
continues to claim that it retains the mandatory source status that
protected it from competition for so long. This kind of misleading
statement may undermine the right to compete that we have fought so
hard for so long to establish.
In addition, FPI continues to sell its services into interstate
commerce on an unlimited basis. I am concerned that the sale of prison
labor into commerce could have the effect of undermining companies and
work forces that are already in a weakened position as a result of
foreign competition. We have long taken the position as a nation that
prison-made goods should not be sold into commerce, where prison wages
of a few cents per hour could too easily undercut private sector
competition. It is hard for me to understand why the sale of services
should be treated any differently than the sale of products.
The bill that we are introducing today would address these issues by
making it absolutely clear that FPI no longer has a mandatory source
status, by reaffirming the critical requirement that FPI compete for
its contracts, and by carefully limiting the circumstances under which
prison services may be sold into the private sector economy.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on these important
issues, and 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. 749
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. GOVERNMENTWIDE PROCUREMENT POLICY RELATING TO
PURCHASES FROM FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES.
(a) Requirements.--The Office of Federal Procurement Policy
Act (41 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``SEC. 42. GOVERNMENTWIDE PROCUREMENT POLICY RELATING TO
PURCHASES FROM FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES.
``(a) Competition Required.--In the procurement of any
product that is authorized to be offered for sale by Federal
Prison Industries and is listed in the catalog published and
maintained by Federal Prison Industries under section 4124(b)
of title 18, United States Code, or any service offered to be
provided by Federal Prison Industries, the head of an
executive agency shall, except as provided in subsection
(d)--
``(1) use competitive procedures for entering into a
contract for the procurement of such product, in accordance
with the requirements applicable to such executive agency
under sections 2304 and 2305 of title 10, United States Code,
or sections 303 through 303C of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253 through
253c); or
``(2) make an individual purchase under a multiple award
contract in accordance with competition requirements
applicable to such purchases.
``(b) Offers From Federal Prison Industries.--In conducting
a procurement pursuant to subsection (a), the head of an
executive agency shall--
``(1) notify Federal Prison Industries of the procurement
at the same time and in the same manner as other potential
offerors are notified;
``(2) consider a timely offer from Federal Prison
Industries for award in the same manner as other offers
(regardless of whether Federal Prison Industries is a
contractor under an applicable multiple award contract); and
``(3) consider a timely offer from Federal Prison
Industries without limitation as to the dollar value of the
proposed purchase, unless the contract opportunity has been
reserved for competition exclusively among small business
concerns pursuant to section 15(a) of the Small Business Act
(15 U.S.C. 644(a)) and its implementing regulations.
``(c) Implementation by Agencies.--The head of each
executive agency shall ensure that--
``(1) the executive agency does not purchase a Federal
Prison Industries product or service unless a contracting
officer of the executive agency determines that the product
or service is comparable to a product or service available
from the private sector that best meet the executive agency's
needs in terms of price, quality, and time of delivery; and
``(2) Federal Prison Industries performs its contractual
obligations to the executive agency to the same extent as any
other contractor for the executive agency.
[[Page S3422]]
``(d) Exception.--
``(1) Other procedures.--The head of an executive agency
may use procedures other than competitive procedures to enter
into a contract with Federal Prison Industries only under the
following circumstances:
``(A) The Attorney General personally determines in
accordance with paragraph (2), within 30 days after Federal
Prison Industries has been informed by the head of that
executive agency of an opportunity for award of a contract
for a product or service, that--
``(i) Federal Prison Industries cannot reasonably expect
fair consideration in the selection of an offeror for award
of the contract on a competitive basis; and
``(ii) the award of the contract to Federal Prison
Industries for performance at a penal or correctional
facility is necessary to maintain work opportunities not
otherwise available at the penal or correctional facility
that prevent circumstances that could reasonably be expected
to significantly endanger the safe and effective
administration of such facility.
``(B) The product or service is available only from Federal
Prison Industries and the contract may be awarded under the
authority of section 2304(c)(1) of title 10, United States
Code, or section 303(c)(1) of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253(c)(1)), as
may be applicable, pursuant to the justification and approval
requirements relating to noncompetitive procurements
specified by law and the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
``(2) Determination.--
``(A) In general.--A determination made by the Attorney
General regarding a contract pursuant to paragraph (1)(A)
shall be--
``(i) supported by specific findings by the warden of the
penal or correctional institution at which a Federal Prison
Industries workshop is scheduled to perform the contract;
``(ii) supported by specific findings by Federal Prison
Industries regarding the reasons that it does not expect to
be selected for award of the contract on a competitive basis;
and
``(iii) made and reported in the same manner as a
determination made pursuant to section 303(c)(7) of the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41
U.S.C. 253(c)(7)).
``(B) Nondelegation.--The Attorney General may not delegate
to any other official authority to make a determination that
is required under paragraph (1)(A) to be made personally by
the Attorney General.
``(e) Performance as a Subcontractor.--
``(1) In general.--A contractor or potential contractor
under a contract entered into by the head of an executive
agency may not be required to use Federal Prison Industries
as a subcontractor or supplier of a product or provider of a
service for the performance of the contract by any means,
including means such as--
``(A) a provision in a solicitation of offers that requires
a contractor to offer to use or specify a product or service
of Federal Prison Industries in the performance of the
contract;
``(B) a contract clause that requires the contractor to use
or specify a product or service (or classes of products or
services) offered by Federal Prison Industries in the
performance of the contract; or
``(C) any contract modification that requires the use of a
product or service of Federal Prison Industries in the
performance of the contract.
``(2) Subcontractor or supplier.--A contractor using
Federal Prison Industries as a subcontractor or supplier in
furnishing a commercial product pursuant to a contract of an
executive agency shall implement appropriate management
procedures to prevent an introduction of an inmate-produced
product into the commercial market.
``(3) Definition.--In this subsection, the term
`contractor', with respect to a contract, includes a
subcontractor at any tier under the contract.
``(f) Protection of Classified and Sensitive Information.--
The head of an executive agency may not enter into any
contract with Federal Prison Industries under which an inmate
worker would have access to--
``(1) any data that is classified or will become classified
after being merged with other data;
``(2) any geographic data regarding the location of--
``(A) surface or subsurface infrastructure providing
communications or water or electrical power distribution;
``(B) pipelines for the distribution of natural gas, bulk
petroleum products, or other commodities; or
``(C) other utilities; or
``(3) any personal or financial information about any
individual private citizen, including information relating to
such person's real property however described, without the
prior consent of the individual.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section
1(b) of such Act is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``Sec. 42. Governmentwide procurement policy relating to purchases from
Federal Prison Industries.''.
SEC. 2. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) Repeal of Inconsistent Requirements Applicable to
Department of Defense.--
(1) In general.--Section 2410n of title 10, United States
Code, is repealed.
(2) Table of sections.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 141 of such title is amended by striking
the item relating to section 2410n.
(b) Repeal of Inconsistent Requirements Applicable to Other
Agencies.--Section 4124 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking subsections (a) and (b) and redesignating
subsections (c) and (d) as subsections (a) and (b),
respectively; and
(2) in subsection (a), as redesignated by paragraph (1), by
striking ``Federal department, agency, and institution
subject to the requirements of subsection (a)'' and inserting
``Federal department and agency''.
(c) Other Laws.--
(1) Javits-wagner-o'day act.--Section 3 of the Javits-
Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 48) is amended by striking
``which, under section 4124 of such title, is required'' and
inserting ``which is required by law''.
(2) Small business act.--Section 31(b)(4) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657a(b)(4)) is amended by striking
``a different source under section 4124 or 4125 of title 18,
United States Code, or the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C.
46 et seq.)'' and inserting ``a different source under the
Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46 et seq.) or Federal
Prison Industries under section 40(d) of the Office of
Federal Procurement Policy Act or section 4125 of title 18,
United States Code''.
SEC. 3. UNLAWFUL TRANSPORTATION OR IMPORTATION OF PRODUCTS,
SERVICES, OR MINERALS RESULTING FROM CONVICT
LABOR.
(a) Prohibition.--Section 1761 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting after ``reformatory
institution,'' the following: ``or knowingly sells in
interstate commerce any services, other than disassembly and
scrap resale activities to achieve landfill avoidance,
furnished wholly or in part by convicts or prisoners, except
convicts or prisoners on parole, supervised release, or
probation, or in any penal or reformatory institution,''; and
(2) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) in subsection
(c), by inserting ``, or services furnished,'' after ``or
mined''.
(b) Completion of Existing Agreements.--Any prisoner work
program operated by the Federal Government or by a State or
local government which was providing a service for the
commercial market through inmate labor on October 1, 2005,
may continue to provide such commercial services until--
(1) the expiration that was specified in the contract or
other agreement with a commercial partner on October 1, 2005;
or
(2) until September 30, 2006, if no expiration date was
specified in a contract or other agreement with a commercial
partner.
(c) Approval Required for Long-Term Operation of State and
Local Programs.--Except as provided in subsection (b), a
prison work program operated by a State or local government
may provide a service for the commercial market through
inmate labor only if such program has been certified pursuant
to section 1761(c) of title 18, United States Code, and is in
compliance with the requirements of such subsection and its
implementing regulations.
(d) Approval Required for Long-Term Operation of Federal
Programs.--Except as provided in subsection (b), a prison
work program operated by the Federal Government may provide a
service for the commercial market through inmate labor only
if a Federal Prison Industries proposal to provide such
services is approved in accordance with the requirements of
this subsection by the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary
of Labor, and the Administrator of the Small Business
Administration. Such a proposal may be approved only upon a
determination, after notice and an opportunity for public
comment, that--
(1) the service to be provided would be provided
exclusively by foreign labor in the absence of the Federal
Prison Industries proposal; and
(2) the approval of the proposal will not have an adverse
impact on employment in any United States business.
(e) Protection of Classified and Sensitive Information.--A
prison work program operated by a State or local government
may not provide a service, including a service for the
commercial market through inmate labor pursuant to section
1761(c) of title 18, United States Code, under which an
inmate worker would have access to--
(1) any data that is classified or will become classified
after being merged with other data;
(2) any geographic data regarding the location of--
(A) surface or subsurface infrastructure providing
communications or water or electrical power distribution;
(B) pipelines for the distribution of natural gas, bulk
petroleum products, or other commodities; or
(C) other utilities or transportation infrastructure; or
(3) any personal or financial information about any
individual private citizen, including information relating to
such person's real property however described, without the
prior consent of the individual.
SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL INMATE WORK OPPORTUNITIES THROUGH PUBLIC
SERVICE ACTIVITIES.
(a) Cooperation With Charitable Organizations.--Chapter 307
of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following:
[[Page S3423]]
``SEC. 4130. COOPERATION WITH CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS.
``(a) Sale or Donation of Products or Services to
Charitable Entities.--Federal Prison Industries may, subject
to subsection (b), sell or donate a product or service to an
organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 that is exempt from taxation under
section 501(a) of such Code. Any product or service sold or
donated under this section may be donated or sold by the
charitable organization to low-income individuals who would
otherwise have difficulty purchasing such products or
services.
``(b) Work Agreements With Charitable Organizations.--
``(1) In general.--Federal Prison Industries may sell or
donate a product or service to a charitable organization
under subsection (a) only pursuant to a work agreement with
the charitable organization receiving the product or service.
``(2) Terms.--Federal Prison Industries may enter a work
agreement relating to a product and service under paragraph
(1) only if--
``(A) the Attorney General determines, in consultation with
the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Commerce, that
the product or service would not be available except for the
availability of inmate workers provided by Federal Prison
Industries; and
``(B) the work agreement is accompanied by a written
certification by the chief executive officer of the
charitable organization that--
``(i) no job of a noninmate employee or volunteer of the
charitable organization (or any affiliate of the charitable
organization) will be abolished, and no such employee's or
volunteer's work hours will be reduced, as a result of the
entity being authorized to utilize inmate workers; and
``(ii) the work to be performed by the inmate workers will
not supplant work currently being performed by a contractor
of the charitable organization.
``(3) Nondelegation.--The Attorney General may not delegate
authority to make determinations under paragraph (2)(A) to
any person serving in a position below the lowest level of
positions that are filled by appointment by the President, by
and with the advice and consent of the Senate.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 307 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``4130. Cooperation with charitable organizations.
SEC. 5. ADDITIONAL REHABILITATIVE OPPORTUNITIES FOR INMATES.
(a) Establishment of Program.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 303 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 4049. ENHANCED IN-PRISON EDUCATIONAL AND VOCATIONAL
ASSESSMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAM.
``(a) In General.--There is established the Enhanced In-
Prison Educational and Vocational Assessment and Training
Program within the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
``(b) Requirements.--The program established under this
section shall provide, at a minimum, a full range of
educational opportunities, vocational training and
apprenticeships, and comprehensive release-readiness
preparation for inmates in Federal prisons.''.
(2) Table of sections.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``4049. Enhanced In-Prison Educational and Vocational Assessment and
Training Program.
(b) Implementation Objective.--It shall be the objective of
the Federal Bureau of Prisons to implement the program
established under section 4049 of title 18, United States
Code (as added by subsection (a)), in all Federal prisons not
later than 8 years after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
SEC. 6. NEW PRODUCTS AND EXPANDED PRODUCTION OF EXISTING
PRODUCTS.
Federal Prison Industries shall, to the maximum extent
practicable, increase inmate employment by producing new
products or expanding the production of existing products for
the public sector that would otherwise be produced outside
the United States.
SEC. 7. TRANSITIONAL PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY.
Any correctional officer or other employee of Federal
Prison Industries being paid with nonappropriated funds who
would be separated from service because of a reduction in the
net income of Federal Prison Industries before the date that
is 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act shall
be--
(1) eligible for appointment (or reappointment) in the
competitive service in accordance with subpart B or part III
of title 5, United States Code;
(2) registered on a Bureau of Prisons reemployment priority
list; and
(3) given priority for any other position within the Bureau
of Prisons for which such employee is qualified.
SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Mr. THOMAS. President, today I am pleased to join Senator Levin in
introducing a bill that will further my efforts to limit unfair
government competition with the private sector. Throughout my career in
public office, I have always taken the position that government should
not compete unfairly with American small businesses. If a function or
product is available in the private sector, then that should be the
first avenue of choice as opposed to having that function provided by
government.
For several years now, Federal Prison Industries (FPI), a government
entity with the purpose of keeping prisoners busy while serving their
sentences, has been providing a growing variety of products and
services to both the Federal Government and the private sector.
Currently, FPI employs approximately 21,000 Federal prisoners or
roughly 12 percent of a population of 174,000. These prisoners are
responsible for producing a diverse range of products for FPI, ranging
from office furniture to clothing, as well as providing a variety of
services, including telemarketing. The remaining Federal prisoners who
work do so in and around Federal prisons.
Through its status as a sole provider of certain goods to the Federal
Government, FPI has effectively blocked private sector businesses from
having a chance to provide products, even though they may be able to
provide a better product in a more cost effective and efficient manner.
This situation is not in the best interest of the American taxpayer and
is blatantly unfair to American small businesses across the country.
Along with Senators Grassley and Stabenow, Senator Levin and I propose
to enact thorough and lasting reforms to Federal Prison Industries that
would ensure that they no longer compete unfairly with private sector
small businesses.
We have already taken steps to remedy the situation. In last year's
Omnibus Appropriations bill, language was included that prohibited
funding for sole source products from FPI and subjected such
procurements to follow the competitive requirements set out in the
Federal Acquisitions Regulations. However, there are questions as to
whether the mandatory sourcing requirement still remains under these
regulations. Our bill makes it very clear to Federal Managers and
Federal Prison Industries that contracting officers are to use
competitive procedures for the procurement of products and services.
This approach allows federal agencies to select FPI for contracts if,
as a result of a competitive process, FPI can meet that particular
agency's requirements and the product or service is the best value
offered at a fair and reasonable price. By removing FPI's status as the
sole provider and subjecting procurement to competition, the above
outlined provision in our bill places the control of government
procurement in the hands of contracting officers and allows them to
pursue the most cost effective and efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
While we believe that it is important to keep prisoners working, we
do not believe that this effort should unduly harm or conflict with
law-abiding businesses. This bill seeks to minimize the unfair
competition that private sector companies face with the FPI. As FPI
continues to expand its reach into providing services, the low costs of
inmate labor is undercutting private sector businesses that provide
similar services. The result is an unfair advantage for FPI. While
allowing for the conclusion of current contracts, this bill also looks
to limit services provided by inmates that compete with the private
sector in interstate commerce. Additionally, the bill prohibits FPI
from production of goods or services in which an inmate would have
access to classified or sensitive data.
We support the goal of keeping prisoners busy while serving their
time in prison. But FPI should not be placed in a position of advantage
when providing goods to the federal government, and these activities
should not unfairly compete with services already provided in the
private sector. However, I recognize that there may be cases in which a
particular contract is deemed essential to the safety and effective
administration of a particular prison. To deal with these exceptions, a
provision is included that allows the Attorney General to grant a
waiver to these reform measures in certain cases.
In addition to bringing a halt to unfair business practices with the
private sector, this bill allows for FPI to search for other means to
keep prisoners working that do not impact the
[[Page S3424]]
employment of individuals in the private sector. There is a need to
keep inmates busy, and this legislation addresses further work
opportunities though public service activities and cooperation with
charitable organizations. Additionally, the bill recognizes the need
for further avenues of rehabilitation and directs the Federal Bureau of
Prisons to establish an Enhanced In-Prison Educational and Vocational
Assessment and Training Program for inmates.
I am confident that by allowing competition for government contracts
our bill will save taxpayer dollars. Through healthy competition with
the private sector for procurement contracts, FPI will be forced to
look internally for ways to improve its own effectiveness and
efficiency. The reform of Federal Prison Industries will bring about
numerous improvements, not just in cost savings, but also in preserving
jobs for law abiding Americans in the private sector who work in small
businesses. And the most important effect will be the better use of tax
dollars. The American taxpayer is the one who will benefit most from
this legislation.
A similar version of our bill was reported favorably out of the
Senate Governmental Affairs Committee in the 108th Congress, and reform
measures have passed overwhelming in the House of Representatives. Our
bill has the support of small business groups from across the country,
as well as organized labor. Clearly, reforming the way Federal Prison
Industries does business is an issue that enjoys broad, bipartisan
support. I believe this bill provides that reform. I would ask my
colleagues to look at this legislation and consider giving it their
support.
______
By Mr. KYL:
S. 750. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow
look-through treatment of payments between related foreign
corporations; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the 108th Congress began the necessary
process, as part of the American Jobs Creation Act, of rationalizing
the way the United States taxes the foreign income of U.S.-based
companies, thereby helping U.S. employers to be more competitive in
international markets. There was one provision, however, that passed
both the Senate and the House but that was dropped out of the
conference report at the eleventh hour for reasons that were unrelated
to the merits of the provision. That provision extended the general
rule of tax deferral to dividends, interest, rents and royalties that
are paid out in the ordinary course of active business activities by
one foreign affiliate of a U.S. company to another affiliate in another
country. Today, I am introducing legislation to make this important
change.
The United States taxes U.S. companies on their worldwide income, but
the general rule is that foreign subsidiary income is not taxed by the
United States until the subsidiary earnings are brought back to the
U.S. parent, usually in the form of a dividend. Subpart F of the
Internal Revenue Code sets forth a number of exceptions to this general
rule. Subpart F imposes current tax on subsidiary earnings generally
when that income is passive in nature. One such exception taxes the
U.S. parent when a subsidiary receives dividends, interest, rents or
royalties from another subsidiary that is located in a different
country. If the two subsidiaries are in the same country, however,
current taxation does not apply.
The proposal I am introducing today would extend this ``same-
country'' treatment to payments between related foreign subsidiaries
that are located in different countries. This proposal is identical to
the one that passed the Senate last year.
Today's global economy is significantly different from the
environment that existed when the subpart F rules were first introduced
in 1962. As the global economy has changed, the traditional model for
operating a global business has changed as well. In today's world, it
makes no sense to impose a tax penalty when a company wants to fund the
operations of a subsidiary in one country from the active business
earnings of a subsidiary in a second country. For example, to operate
efficiently, a U.S.-based manufacturer will probably establish
specialized manufacturing sites, distribution hubs, and service
centers. As a result, multiple related-party entities may be required
to fulfill a specific customer order. U.S. tax law today
inappropriately increases the cost for these foreign subsidiaries to
serve their customers in a very competitive business environment by
imposing current tax on these related-party payments, even though the
income remains deployed in the foreign market.
Further, financial institutions have established foreign subsidiaries
with headquarters in a financial center, such as London, and branches
in multiple countries in the same geographic region. This permits an
efficient ``hub and spoke'' form of regional operation; however, this
efficient business model may make it difficult for the same country
exception under current law to be met for payments of dividends and
interest.
Under the existing rules, American companies are at a real and
significant competitive disadvantage as compared to foreign-based
companies. By creating current U.S. taxation of active business income
when subsidiaries make cross-border payments, U.S.-based multinationals
are penalized for responding to market or investment opportunities by
redeploying active foreign earnings among foreign businesses conducted
through multiple subsidiaries. To remove this impediment, subpart F
should be amended to provide a general exception for interaffiliate
payments of dividends, interest, rents or royalties that are generated
from an active business.
The right answer is to apply ``look-through'' treatment to payments
of dividends, interest, rents and royalties between subsidiaries. If
the underlying earnings would not have been subject to subpart F, the
payments should not be subpart F income. Look-through treatment for
payments of dividends, interest, rents and royalties should be
permitted as long as the payments are made out of active business, non-
subpart F, income. ``Look-through'' principles are already well-
developed for other purposes of the Internal Revenue Code. For example,
a look-through approach to the characterization of foreign income is
used for purposes of calculating foreign tax credits. A consistent
application of look-through principles would simplify the interaction
between subpart F and the foreign tax credit rules.
If we want to keep U.S.-based multinational companies--who employ
millions of workers here at home--headquartered in the United States,
we must modernize our tax rules so that our companies can be
competitive around the globe I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this
legislation to make a modest change in the law that will enhance the
position of U.S.-based employers trying to succeed in competitive
foreign markets.
______
By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Dorgan):
S. 752. A bill to require the United States Trade Representative to
pursue a complaint of anti-competitive practices against certain oil
exporting countries; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text
of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 752
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 ``OPEC Accountability Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Gasoline prices have nearly doubled since January,
2002, with oil recently trading at more than $58 per barrel
for the first time ever.
(2) Rising gasoline prices have placed an inordinate burden
on American families.
(3) High gasoline prices have hindered and will continue to
hinder economic recovery.
(4) The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries
(OPEC) has formed a cartel and engaged in anti-competitive
practices to manipulate the price of oil, keeping it
artificially high.
(5) Six member nations of OPEC--Indonesia, Kuwait, Nigeria,
Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela--are also
members of the World Trade Organization.
(6) The agreement among OPEC member nations to limit oil
exports is an illegal prohibition or restriction on the
exportation or
[[Page S3425]]
sale for export of a product under Article XI of the GATT
1994.
(7) The export quotas and resulting high prices harm
American families, undermine the American economy, impede
American and foreign commerce, and are contrary to the
national interests of the United States.
SEC. 3. ACTIONS TO CURB CERTAIN CARTEL ANTI-COMPETITIVE
PRACTICES.
(a) Definitions.--In this Act:
(1) GATT 1994.--The term ``GATT 1994'' has the meaning
given such term in section 2(1)(B) of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3501(1)(B)).
(2) Understanding on rules and procedures governing the
settlement of disputes.--The term ``Understanding on Rules
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes'' means
the agreement described in section 101(d)(16) of the Uruguay
Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(16)).
(3) World trade organization.--
(A) In general.--The term ``World Trade Organization''
means the organization established pursuant to the WTO
Agreement.
(B) WTO agreement.--The term ``WTO Agreement'' means the
Agreement Establishing The World Trade Organization entered
into on April 15, 1994.
(b) Action by President.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the President shall, not later than 15 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, initiate consultations with
the countries described in paragraph (2) to seek the
elimination by those countries of any action that--
(A) limits the production or distribution of oil, natural
gas, or any other petroleum product,
(B) sets or maintains the price of oil, natural gas, or any
petroleum product, or
(C) otherwise is an action in restraint of trade with
respect to oil, natural gas, or any petroleum product, when
such action constitutes an act, policy, or practice that is
unjustifiable and burdens and restricts United States
commerce.
(2) Countries described.--The countries described in this
paragraph are the following:
(A) Indonesia.
(B) Kuwait.
(C) Nigeria.
(D) Qatar.
(E) The United Arab Emirates.
(F) Venezuela.
(c) Initiation of WTO Dispute Proceedings.--If the
consultations described in subsection (b) are not successful
with respect to any country described in subsection (b)(2),
the United States Trade Representative shall, not later than
60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, institute
proceedings pursuant to the Understanding on Rules and
Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes with respect
to that country and shall take appropriate action with
respect to that country under the trade remedy laws of the
United States.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. McCain):
S. 753. A bill to provide for modernization and improvement of the
Corps of Engineers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Corps of
Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act of 2005. I am pleased to be
joined by the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, who worked with
me in the 107th and 108th Congresses to reform the Corps.
We cannot ignore the record-breaking deficits that the Nation faces.
Fiscal responsibility has never been so important. This legislation
provides Congress with a unique opportunity to underscore our
commitment to that goal. Too often, some have suggested that fiscal
responsibility and environmental protection are mutually exclusive.
Through this legislation, however, we can save taxpayers billions of
dollars and protect the environment. As evidence of this unique
opportunity, this bill is supported by Taxpayers for Common Sense, the
National Taxpayers Union, the National Wildlife Federation, American
Rivers, the Corps Reform Network, and Earthjustice.
Reforming the Army Corps of Engineers will be a difficult task for
Congress. It involves restoring credibility and accountability to a
Federal agency rocked by scandals and constrained by endlessly growing
authorizations and a gloomy Federal fiscal picture, and yet an agency
that Wisconsin, and many other States across the country, have come to
rely upon. From the Great Lakes to the mighty Mississippi, the Corps is
involved in providing aid to navigation, environmental remediation,
water control and a variety of other services in my state alone.
My office has strong working relationships with the Detroit, Rock
Island, and St. Paul District Offices that service Wisconsin, and I
want the fiscal and management cloud over the Corps to dissipate so
that the Corps can continue to contribute to our environment and our
economy.
This legislation evolved from my experience in seeking to offer an
amendment to the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to create
independent review of Army Corps of Engineers' projects. In response to
my initiative, the bill's managers, who included the former Senator
from New Hampshire, Senator Bob Smith, and the senior Senator from
Montana, Mr. Baucus, adopted an amendment as part of their managers'
package to require a National Academy of Sciences study on the issue of
peer review of Corps projects.
The bill I introduce today includes many provisions that were
included the bill I authored in the 108th Congress. It codifies the
idea of independent review of the Corps, which was investigated through
the 2000 Water Resources bill. It also provides a mechanism to speed up
completion of construction for good Corps projects with large public
benefits by deauthorizing low priority and economically wasteful
projects.
I will note, however, that this is not the first time that the
Congress has realized that the Corps needs to be reformed because of
its association with pork projects. In 1836, a House Ways and Means
Committee report discovered that at least 25 Corps projects were over
budget. In its report, the Committee noted that Congress must ensure
that the Corps institutes ``actual reform, in the further prosecution
of public works.'' In 1902, Congress created a review board to
determine whether Corps projects were justified. The review board was
dismantled just over a decade ago, and the Corps is still linked with
wasteful spending. Here we are, more than 100 years later, talking
about the same issue.
The reality is that the underlying problem is not with the Corps, the
problem is with Congress. All too often, Members of Congress have seen
Corps projects as a way to bring home the bacon, rather than ensuring
that taxpayers get the most bang for their Federal buck.
This bill puts forth bold, comprehensive reform measures. It
modernizes the Corps project planning guidelines, which have not been
updated since 1983. It requires the Corps to use sound science in
estimating the costs and evaluating the needs for water resources
projects. The bill clarifies that the national economic development and
environmental protection are co-equal objectives of the Corps.
Furthermore, the Corps must use current discount rates when determining
the costs and benefits of projects. Several Corps projects are
justified using a discount rate formula established over 30 years ago,
not the current government-wide discount rate promulgated by the Office
of Management and Budget. By using this outdated discount rate formula,
the Corps often overestimates project benefits and underestimates
project costs.
This legislation also requires that a water resource project's
benefits must be 1.5 times greater than the costs to the taxpayer.
According to a 2002 study of the Corps backlog of projects, at least 60
Corps projects, whose combined costs total $4.6 billion, do not meet
this 1.5 to 1 benefit-cost ratio. Thus, this benefit-cost ratio will
save the taxpayer billions of dollars. The bill also mandates federal-
local cost sharing of flood control projects and reduces the federal
cost burden of these projects.
While the bill assumes a flat 50 percent cost-share for flood control
projects, my home state of Wisconsin has been on the forefront of
responsible flood plain management and also happens to be home to the
Association of State Flood Plain Managers. As Congress considers the
issue of Corps reform and the Water Resources Development Act, I hope
my colleagues will take a closer look at the issue of a sliding cost
scale. We should explore the possibility of creating incentives for
communities with cutting-edge flood plain management practices to
reduce their local share for projects.
The bill requires independent review of Corps projects. The National
Academy of Sciences, the General Accounting Office, and even the
Inspector General of the Army agree that independent review is an
essential step to assuring that each Corps project is economically
justified. Independent review will apply to projects in the following
circumstances: 1. the project
[[Page S3426]]
has costs greater than $25 million, including mitigation costs; 2. the
Governor of a state that is affected by the project requests a panel;
3. the head of a federal agency charged with reviewing the project
determines that the project is likely to have a significant adverse
environmental or cultural impact; or 4. the Secretary of the Army
determines that the project is controversial. Any party can request
that the Secretary make a determination of whether the project is
controversial.
This bill also creates a Director of Independent Review within the
Office of the Inspector General of the Department of the Army. The
Director is responsible for empaneling experts to review projects. The
Secretary is required to respond to the panel's report and explain the
extent to which a final report addresses the panel's concerns. The
panel report and the underlying data that the Corps uses to justify the
project will be made available to the public.
The bill also requires strong environmental protection measures. The
Corps is required to mitigate the environmental impacts of its projects
in a variety of ways, including by avoiding damaging wetlands in the
first place and either holding other lands or constructing wetlands
elsewhere when it cannot avoid destroying them. The Corps requires
private developers to meet this standard when they construct projects
as a condition of receiving a Federal permit, and I think the Federal
Government should live up to the same standards. Too often, the Corps
does not complete required mitigation and enhances environmental risks.
I feel very strongly that mitigation must be completed, that the true
costs of mitigation should be accounted for in Corps projects, and that
the public should be able to track the progress of mitigation projects.
The bill requires the Corps to develop a detailed mitigation plan for
each water resources project, and conduct monitoring to demonstrate
that the mitigation is working. In addition, the concurrent mitigation
requirements of this bill would actually reduce the total mitigation
costs by ensuring the purchase of mitigation lands as soon as possible.
This bill streamlines the existing automatic deauthorization process.
Estimates of the project backlog runs from $58 billion to $41 billion.
The bill requires the Corps to conduct a fiscal transparency report to
review and report on the current backlog of Corps projects. Under
current law, a project will be deauthorized anywhere from 7.5 to 11.5
years after authorization for construction if it receives no funding,
and any type of funding will keep the project alive. This bill reduces
the amount of time until automatic deauthorization based on funding to
between 7.5 to 6.5 years. After 4 years of receiving no construction
funding, a project goes on the Fiscal Transparency Report list. To keep
one of those projects alive, Federal funds must be obligated for
construction within 30 months of submission of the Fiscal Transparency
Report. If no funds are obligated during that time, the project is
deauthorized.
This legislation will bring out comprehensive revision of the project
review and authorization procedures at the Army Corps of Engineers. My
goals for the Corps are to increase transparency and accountability, to
ensure fiscal responsibility, and to allow greater stakeholder
involvement in their projects. I remain committed to these goals, and
to seeing Corps Reform enacted as part of this Congress's Water
Resources bill.
I feel that this bill is an important step down the road to a
reformed Corps of Engineers. This bill establishes a framework to catch
mistakes by Corps planners, deter any potential bad behavior by Corps
officials to justify questionable projects, end old unjustified
projects, and provide planners desperately needed support against the
never-ending pressure of project boosters. Those boosters include
congressional interests, which is why I believe that this body needs to
champion reform--to end the perception that Corps projects are all pork
and no substance.
I wish it were the case that the changes we are proposing today were
not needed, but unfortunately, there is still need for this bill. I
want to make sure that future Corps projects no longer fail to produce
predicted benefits, stop costing the taxpayers more than the Corps
estimated, do not have unanticipated environmental impacts, and are
built in an environmentally compatible way. This bill will help the
Corps do a better job, which is what the taxpayers and the environment
deserve.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 753
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Corps of
Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act of 2005''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
TITLE I--MODERNIZING PROJECT PLANNING
Sec. 101. Modern planning principles.
Sec. 102. Independent review.
Sec. 103. Benefit-cost analysis.
Sec. 104. Benefit-cost ratio.
Sec. 105. Cost sharing.
TITLE II--MITIGATION
Sec. 201. Full mitigation.
Sec. 202. Concurrent mitigation.
Sec. 203. Mitigation tracking system.
TITLE III--IMPROVING ACCOUNTABILITY
Sec. 301. Fiscal Transparency Report.
Sec. 302. Project deauthorizations.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the Corps of Engineers is the primary Federal agency
responsible for developing and managing the harbors,
waterways, shorelines, and water resources of the United
States;
(2) the scarcity of Federal resources requires more
efficient use of Corps resources and funding, and greater
oversight of Corps analyses;
(3) appropriate cost sharing ensures efficient measures of
project demands and enables the Corps to meet more national
project needs;
(4) the significant demand for recreation, clean water, and
healthy wildlife habitat must be fully reflected in the
project planning and construction process of the Corps;
(5) the human health, environmental, and social impacts of
dams, levees, shoreline stabilization structures, river
training structures, river dredging, and other Corps projects
and activities must be adequately considered and, in any case
in which adverse impacts cannot be avoided, fully mitigated;
(6) the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that the
Principles and Guidelines for water resources projects need
to be modernized and updated to reflect current economic
practices and environmental laws and planning guidelines; and
(7) affected interests must have access to information that
will allow those interests to play a larger and more
effective role in the oversight of Corps project development
and mitigation.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to ensure that the water resources investments of the
United States are economically justified and enhance the
environment;
(2) to provide independent review of feasibility studies,
general reevaluation studies, and environmental impact
statements of the Corps;
(3) to ensure timely, ecologically successful, and cost-
effective mitigation for Corps projects;
(4) to ensure appropriate local cost sharing to assist in
efficient project planning focused on national needs;
(5) to enhance the involvement of affected interests in
feasibility studies, general reevaluation studies, and
environmental impact statements of the Corps;
(6) to modernize planning principles of the Corps to meet
the economic and environmental needs of riverside and coastal
communities and the nation;
(7) to ensure that environmental protection and
restoration, and national economic development, are co-equal
goals, and given co-equal emphasis, during the evaluation,
planning, and construction of Corps projects;
(8) to ensure that project planning, project evaluations,
and project recommendations of the Corps are based on sound
science and economics and on a full evaluation of the impacts
to the health of aquatic ecosystems; and
(9) to ensure that the determination of benefits and costs
of Corps projects properly reflects current law and Federal
policies designed to protect human health and the
environment.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Academy.--The term ``Academy'' means the National
Academy of Sciences.
(2) Corps.--The term ``Corps'' means the Corps of
Engineers.
(3) Principles and guidelines.--The term ``Principles and
Guidelines'' means the principles and guidelines of the Corps
for water resources projects (consisting of Engineer
Regulation 1105-2-100 and Engineer Pamphlet 1165-2-1).
[[Page S3427]]
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Army.
TITLE I--MODERNIZING PROJECT PLANNING
SEC. 101. MODERN PLANNING PRINCIPLES.
(a) Planning Principles.--Section 209 of the Flood Control
Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962-2) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 209. CONGRESSIONAL STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES.
``(a) In General.--It is the intent of Congress that--
``(1) national economic development and environmental
protection and restoration are co-equal objectives of water
resources project planning and management; and
``(2) Federal agencies manage and, if clearly justified,
construct water resource projects--
``(A) to meet national economic needs; and
``(B) to protect and restore the environment.
``(b) Revision of Planning Guidelines, Regulations and
Circulars.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of the Corps of Engineers Modernization and
Improvement Act of 2005, the Secretary, in collaboration with
the National Academy of Sciences, shall develop proposed
revisions of, and revise, the planning guidelines,
regulations, and circulars of the Corps.
``(c) Additional Requirements.--Corps planning regulations
revised under subsection (b) shall--
``(1) incorporate new and existing analytical techniques
that reflect the probability of project benefits and costs;
``(2) apply discount rates provided by the Office of
Management and Budget;
``(3) eliminate biases and disincentives that discourage
the use of nonstructural approaches to water resources
development and management;
``(4) encourage, to the maximum extent practicable, the
restoration of ecosystems through the restoration of
hydrologic and geomorphic processes;
``(5) consider the costs and benefits of protecting or
degrading natural systems;
``(6) ensure that projects are justified by benefits that
accrue to the public at large;
``(7) ensure that benefit-cost calculations reflect a
credible schedule for project construction;
``(8) ensure that each project increment complies with
section 104;
``(9) include as a cost any increase in direct Federal
payments or subsidies and exclude as a benefit any increase
in direct Federal payments or subsidies; and
``(10) provide a mechanism by which, at least once every 5
years, the Secretary shall collaborate with the National
Academy of Sciences to review, and if necessary, revise all
planning regulations, guidelines, and circulars.
``(d) National Navigation and Port Plan.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date
of enactment of the Corps of Engineers Modernization and
Improvement Act of 2005, the Corps shall develop, and update
not less frequently than every 4 years, an integrated,
national plan to manage, rehabilitate and, if justified,
modernize inland waterway and port infrastructure to meet
current national economic and environmental needs.
``(2) Tools.--To develop the plan, the Corps shall employ
economic tools that--
``(A) recognize the importance of alternative
transportation destinations and modes; and
``(B) employ practicable, cost-effective congestion
management alternatives before constructing and expanding
infrastructure to increase waterway and port capacity.
``(3) Benefits and proximity.--The Corps shall give
particular consideration to the benefits and proximity of
proposed and existing port, harbor, waterway, rail and other
transportation infrastructure in determining whether to
construct new water resources projects.
``(e) Notice and Comment.--The Secretary shall comply with
the notice and comment provisions of chapter 551 of title 5,
United States Code, in issuing revised planning regulations,
guidelines and circulars.
``(f) Applicability.--On completion of the revisions
required under this section, the Secretary shall apply the
revised regulations to projects for which a draft feasibility
study or draft reevaluation report has not yet been issued.
``(g) Project Reformulation.--Projects of the Corps, and
separable elements of projects of the Corps, that have been
authorized for 10 years, but for which less than 15 percent
of appropriations specifically identified for construction
have been obligated, shall not be constructed unless a
general reevaluation study demonstrates that the project or
separable element meets--
``(1) all project criteria and requirements applicable at
the time the study is initiated, including requirements under
this section; and
``(2) cost share and mitigation requirements of this
Act.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 80 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-17) is repealed.
(2) Section 7(a) of the Department of Transportation Act
(Public Law 89-670; 80 Stat. 941) is repealed.
SEC. 102. INDEPENDENT REVIEW.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Affected state.--The term ``affected State'', with
respect to a water resources project, means a State or
portion of a State that--
(A) is located, at least partially, within the drainage
basin in which the project is carried out; and
(B) would be economically or environmentally affected as a
result of the project.
(2) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
Independent Review appointed under subsection (c)(1).
(b) Projects Subject to Independent Review.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that each
feasibility report, general reevaluation report, and
environmental impact statement for each water resources
project described in paragraph (2) is subject to review by an
independent panel of experts established under this section.
(2) Projects subject to review.--A water resources project
shall be subject to review under paragraph (1) if--
(A) the project has an estimated total cost of more than
$25,000,000, including mitigation costs;
(B) the Governor of an affected State requests the
establishment of an independent panel of experts for the
project;
(C) the head of a Federal agency charged with reviewing the
project determines that the project is likely to have a
significant adverse impact on environmental, cultural, or
other resources under the jurisdiction of the agency; or
(D) the Secretary determines under paragraph (3) that the
project is controversial.
(3) Controversial projects.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall determine that a water
resources project is controversial for the purpose of
paragraph (2)(D) if the Secretary finds that--
(i) there is a significant dispute as to the size, nature,
or effects of the project;
(ii) there is a significant dispute as to the economic or
environmental costs or benefits of the project; or
(iii) there is a significant dispute as to the benefits to
the communities affected by the project of a project
alternative that--
(I) was not the focus of the feasibility report, general
reevaluation report, or environmental impact statement for
the project; or
(II) was not considered in the feasibility report, general
reevaluation report, or environmental impact statement for
the project.
(B) Written requests.--Not later than 30 days after the
date on which the Secretary receives a written request of any
party, or on the initiative of the Secretary, the Secretary
shall determine whether a project is controversial.
(c) Director of Independent Review.--
(1) Appointment.--The Inspector General of the Army shall
appoint in the Office of the Inspector General of the Army a
Director of Independent Review.
(2) Qualifications.--The Inspector General of the Army
shall select the Director from among individuals who are
distinguished experts in biology, hydrology, engineering,
economics, or another discipline relating to water resources
management.
(3) Limitation on appointments.--The Inspector General of
the Army shall not appoint an individual to serve as the
Director if the individual has a financial interest in or
close professional association with any entity with a
financial interest in a water resources project that, on the
date of appointment of the Director, is--
(A) under construction;
(B) in the preconstruction engineering and design phase; or
(C) under feasibility or reconnaissance study by the Corps.
(4) Terms.--
(A) In general.--The term of a Director appointed under
this subsection shall be 6 years.
(B) Term limit.--An individual may serve as the Director
for not more than 2 nonconsecutive terms.
(5) Duties.--The Director shall establish a panel of
experts to review each water resources project that is
subject to review under subsection (b).
(d) Establishment of Panels.--
(1) In general.--After the Secretary selects a preferred
alternative for a water resources project subject to review
under subsection (b) in a formal draft feasibility report,
draft general reevaluation report, or draft environmental
impact statement, the Director shall establish a panel of
experts to review the project.
(2) Membership.--A panel of experts established by the
Director for a project shall be composed of not less than 5
nor more than 9 independent experts (including 1 or more
biologists, hydrologists, engineers, and economists) who
represent a range of areas of expertise.
(3) Limitation on appointments.--The Director shall not
appoint an individual to serve on a panel of experts for a
project if the individual has a financial interest in or
close professional association with any entity with a
financial interest in the project.
(4) Consultation.--The Director shall consult with the
Academy in developing lists of individuals to serve on panels
of experts under this section.
(5) Notification.--
(A) In general.--To ensure that the Director is able to
effectively carry out the duties of the Director under this
section, the Secretary shall notify the Director in writing
not later than 90 days before the release of a draft
feasibility report, draft general reevaluation report, or
draft environmental
[[Page S3428]]
impact statement, for every water resources project.
(B) Contents.--The notification shall include--
(i) the estimated cost of the project; and
(ii) a preliminary assessment of whether a panel of experts
may be required.
(6) Compensation.--An individual serving on a panel of
experts under this section shall be compensated at a rate of
pay to be determined by the Inspector General of the Army.
(7) Travel expenses.--A member of a panel of experts under
this section shall be allowed travel expenses, including per
diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for an
employee of an agency under subchapter I of chapter 57 of
title 5, United States Code, while away from the home or
regular place of business of the member in the performance of
the duties of the panel.
(e) Duties of Panels.--
(1) In general.--A panel of experts established for a water
resources project under this section shall--
(A) review each draft feasibility report, draft general
reevaluation report, and draft environmental impact statement
prepared for the project;
(B) assess the adequacy of the economic, scientific, and
environmental models used by the Secretary in reviewing the
project to ensure that--
(i) the best available economic and scientific methods of
analysis have been used;
(ii) the best available economic, scientific, and
environmental data have been used; and
(iii) any regional effects on navigation systems have been
examined;
(C) receive from the public written and oral comments
concerning the project;
(D) not later than the deadline established under
subsection (f), submit to the Secretary a report concerning
the economic, engineering, and environmental analyses of the
project, including the conclusions of the panel, with
particular emphasis on areas of public controversy, with
respect to the feasibility report, general reevaluation
report, or environmental impact statement; and
(E) not later than 30 days after the date of issuance of a
final feasibility report, final general reevaluation report,
or final environmental impact statement, submit to the
Secretary a brief report stating the views of the panel on
the extent to which the final analysis adequately addresses
issues or concerns raised by each earlier evaluation by the
panel.
(2) Extensions.--
(A) In general.--The panel may request from the Director a
30-day extension of the deadline established under paragraph
(1)(E).
(B) Record of decision.--The Secretary shall not issue a
record of decision until after, at the earliest--
(i) the final day of the 30-day period described in
paragraph (1)(E); or
(ii) if the Director grants an extension under subparagraph
(A), the final day of the 60-day period beginning on the date
of issuance of a final feasibility report described in
paragraph (1)(E) and ending on the final day of the extension
granted under subparagraph (A).
(f) Duration of Project Reviews.--
(1) Deadline.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), not
later than 180 days after the date of establishment of a
panel of experts for a water resources project under this
section, the panel shall complete--
(A) each required review of the project; and
(B) all other duties of the panel relating to the project
(other than the duties described in subsection (e)(1)(E)).
(2) Extension of deadline for report on project reviews.--
Not later than 240 days after the date of issuance of a draft
feasibility report, draft general reevaluation report, or
draft environmental impact statement for a project, if a
panel of experts submits to the Director before the end of
the 180-day period described in paragraph (1), and the
Director approves, a request for a 60-day extension of the
deadline established under that paragraph, the panel of
experts shall submit to the Secretary a report required under
subsection (e)(1)(D).
(g) Recommendations of Panel.--
(1) Consideration by secretary.--
(A) In general.--If the Secretary receives a report on a
water resources project from a panel of experts under this
section by the applicable deadline under subsection (e)(1)(E)
or (f), the Secretary shall, at least 14 days before entering
a final record of decision for the water resources project--
(i) take into consideration any recommendations contained
in the report; and
(ii) prepare a written explanation for any recommendations
not adopted.
(B) Inconsistent recommendations and findings.--
Recommendations and findings of the Secretary that are
inconsistent with the recommendations and findings of a panel
of experts under this section shall not be entitled to
deference in a judicial proceeding.
(2) Public review; submission to congress.--After receiving
a report on a water resources project from a panel of experts
under this section (including a report under subsection
(e)(1)(E)), the Secretary shall--
(A) immediately make a copy of the report (and, in a case
in which any written explanation of the Secretary on
recommendations contained in the report is completed, shall
immediately make a copy of the response) available for public
review; and
(B) include a copy of the report (and any written
explanation of the Secretary) in any report submitted to
Congress concerning the project.
(h) Public Access to Information.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), the
Secretary shall ensure that information relating to the
analysis of any water resources project by the Corps,
including all supporting data, analytical documents, and
information that the Corps has considered in the analysis, is
made available--
(A) to any individual upon request;
(B) to the public on the Internet; and
(C) to an independent review panel, if such a panel is
established for the project.
(2) Types of information.--Information concerning a project
that is available under paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) any information that has been made available to the
non-Federal interests with respect to the project; and
(B) all data and information used by the Corps in the
justification and analysis of the project.
(3) Exception for trade secrets.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall not make information
available under paragraph (1) that the Secretary determines
to be a trade secret of any person that provided the
information to the Corps.
(B) Criteria for trade secrets.--The Secretary shall
consider information to be a trade secret only if--
(i) the person that provided the information to the Corps--
(I) has not disclosed the information to any person other
than--
(aa) an officer or employee of the United States or a State
or local government;
(bb) an employee of the person that provided the
information to the Corps; or
(cc) a person that is bound by a confidentiality agreement;
and
(II) has taken reasonable measures to protect the
confidentiality of the information and intends to continue to
take the measures;
(ii) the information is not required to be disclosed, or
otherwise made available, to the public under any other
Federal or State law; and
(iii) disclosure of the information is likely to cause
substantial harm to the competitive position of the person
that provided the information to the Corps.
(i) Costs.--
(1) Limitation on cost of review.--The cost of conducting a
review of a water resources project under this section shall
not exceed--
(A) $250,000 for a project, if the total cost of the
project in current year dollars is less than $50,000,000; and
(B) 0.5 percent of the total cost of the project in current
year dollars, if the total cost is $50,000,000 or more.
(2) Treatment.--The cost of conducting a review of a
project under this section shall be considered to be part of
the total cost of the project.
(3) Cost sharing.--A review of a project under this section
shall be subject to section 105(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2215(a)).
(4) Waiver of limitation.--The Secretary may waive a
limitation under paragraph (1) if the Secretary determines
that the waiver is appropriate.
(j) Applicability of Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall apply to
a panel of experts established under this section.
SEC. 103. BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS.
Section 308(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1990 (33 U.S.C. 2318(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semi-colon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) any projected benefit attributable to any change in,
or intensification of, land use arising from the draining,
reduction, or elimination of wetlands; and
``(4) any projected benefit attributable to an increase in
direct Federal payments or subsidies.''.
SEC. 104. BENEFIT-COST RATIO.
(a) Recommendation of Projects.--Beginning in fiscal year
2006, in the case of a water resources project that is
subject to a benefit-cost analysis, the Secretary may
recommend the project for authorization by Congress, and may
choose the project as a recommended alternative in any record
of decision or environmental impact statement, only if the
project, in addition to meeting any other criteria required
by law, has projected national benefits that are at least 1.5
times as great as the estimated total costs of the project,
based on current discount rates provided by the Office of
Management and Budget.
(b) Deauthorization of Projects.--
(1) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report identifying each water resources project (or
separable element of such a project) that is subject to a
benefit-cost analysis and authorized for construction, the
projected remaining benefits of which are less than 1.5 times
as great as the remaining projected costs.
(2) Deauthorizations.--
(A) In general.--Effective beginning on the date that is 3
years after the date of submission of the report under
paragraph (1), any project identified in the report shall be
deauthorized unless the project was reauthorized by Congress
during the preceding 3 years.
[[Page S3429]]
(B) Construction in progress.--If construction (other than
preconstruction engineering or design) began on or before the
date of enactment of this Act for a project that is
deauthorized under subparagraph (A), the Secretary may take
such actions with respect to the project as the Secretary
determines to be necessary to protect public health and
safety and the environment.
(c) Public Notification.--The Secretary shall--
(1) publish in the Federal Register the report under
subsection (b)(1); and
(2) make the report available to the public on the
Internet.
(d) Final Deauthorization List.--The Secretary shall
publish in the Federal Register a list of all projects
deauthorized under this section.
SEC. 105. COST SHARING.
(a) Operations and Maintenance of Inland Waterways.--
Section 102 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 2212) is amended by striking subsections (b) and
(c) and inserting the following:
``(b) Operation and Maintenance.--
``(1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of
operation and maintenance shall be 100 percent in the case
of--
``(A) a project described in paragraph (1) or (2) of
subsection (a); or
``(B) the portion of the project authorized by section 844
that is allocated to inland navigation.
``(2) Source of federal share.--
``(A) From the general fund.--In the case of a project
described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) with
respect to which the cost of operation and maintenance is
less than or equal to 2 cents per ton mile, or in the case of
the portion of the project authorized by section 844 that is
allocated to inland navigation, the Federal share under
paragraph (1) shall be paid only from amounts appropriated
from the general fund of the Treasury.
``(B) From the general fund and inland waterways trust
fund.--In the case of a project described in paragraph (1) or
(2) of subsection (a) with respect to which the cost of
operation and maintenance is greater than 2 but less than or
equal to 10 cents per ton mile--
``(i) 75 percent of the Federal share under paragraph (1)
shall be paid only from amounts appropriated from the general
fund of the Treasury; and
``(ii) 25 percent of the Federal share under paragraph (1)
shall be paid only from amounts appropriated from the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund.
``(C) From the inland waterways trust fund.--In the case of
a project described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a)
with respect to which the cost of operation and maintenance
is greater than 10 cents per ton mile but less than 30 cents
per ton mile, 100 percent of the Federal share under
paragraph (1) shall be paid only from amounts appropriated
from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
``(D) Non-federal responsibility.--In the case of a project
described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) with
respect to which the cost of operation and maintenance is
greater than 30 cents per ton-mile, the cost of operations
and maintenance shall be a non-Federal responsibility.''.
(b) Flood Damage Reduction.--Section 103 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213) is
amended--
(1) in subsections (a)(2) and (b), by striking ``35'' each
place it appears and inserting ``50'';
(2) in the paragraph heading of subsection (a)(2), by
striking ``35 percent minimum''' and inserting ``Minimum''';
and
(3) in the paragraph heading of subsection (b), by striking
``35'' and inserting ``50''.
TITLE II--MITIGATION
SEC. 201. FULL MITIGATION.
Section 906(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(d)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) Projects.--
``(A) In general.--After November 17, 1986, the Secretary
shall not submit to Congress any proposal for the
authorization of any water resources project, and shall not
choose a project alternative in any final record of decision,
environmental impact statement, or environmental assessment,
unless the report contains--
``(i) a specific plan to fully mitigate losses of aquatic
and terrestrial resources and fish and wildlife created by
the project; or
``(ii) a determination by the Secretary that the project
will have negligible adverse impact on aquatic and
terrestrial resources and fish and wildlife.
``(B) Specific requirements.--Specific mitigation plans
shall ensure that impacts to bottomland hardwood forests and
other habitat types are mitigated in kind.
``(C) Consultation.--In carrying out this paragraph, the
Secretary shall consult with appropriate Federal and non-
Federal agencies.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Standards for mitigation.--
``(A) In general.--To fully mitigate losses to fish and
wildlife resulting from a water resources project, the
Secretary shall, at a minimum--
``(i) acquire and restore 1 acre of superior or equivalent
habitat of the same type to replace each acre of habitat
adversely affected by the project; and
``(ii) replace the hydrologic functions and
characteristics, the ecological functions and
characteristics, and the spatial distribution of the habitat
adversely affected by the project.
``(B) Detailed mitigation plan.--The specific mitigation
plan for a water resources project under paragraph (1) shall
include, at a minimum--
``(i) a detailed and specific plan to monitor mitigation
implementation and ecological success, including the
designation of the entities that will be responsible for
monitoring;
``(ii) specific ecological success criteria by which the
mitigation will be evaluated and determined to be successful,
prepared in consultation with the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service;
``(iii) a detailed description of the land and interests in
land to be acquired for mitigation and the basis for a
determination that land and interests are available for
acquisition;
``(iv) sufficient detail regarding the chosen mitigation
sites and type and amount of restoration activities to permit
a thorough evaluation of the plan's likelihood of ecological
success and resulting aquatic and terrestrial resource
functions and habitat values; and
``(v) a contingency plan for taking corrective actions if
monitoring demonstrates that mitigation efforts are not
achieving ecological success as described in the ecological
success criteria.
``(C) Applicable law.--A time period for mitigation
monitoring or for the implementation and monitoring of
contingency plan actions shall not be subject to the
deadlines described in section 202.
``(4) Determination of mitigation success.--
``(A) In general.--Mitigation shall be considered to be
successful at the time at which monitoring demonstrates that
the mitigation has met the ecological success criteria
established in the mitigation plan.
``(B) Requirements for success.--To ensure the success of
any attempted mitigation, the Secretary shall--
``(i) consult yearly with the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service on each water resources project requiring
mitigation to determine whether mitigation monitoring for
that project demonstrates that the project is achieving, or
has achieved, ecological success;
``(ii) ensure that implementation of the mitigation
contingency plan for taking corrective action begins not
later than 30 days after a finding by the Secretary or the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service that the original
mitigation efforts likely will not result in, or have not
resulted in, ecological success;
``(iii) complete implementation of the contingency plan as
expeditiously as practicable; and
``(iv) ensure that monitoring of mitigation efforts,
including those implemented through a mitigation contingency
plan, continues until the monitoring demonstrates that the
mitigation has met the ecological success criteria.
``(5) Recommendation of projects.--The Secretary shall not
recommend a water resources project alternative or choose a
project alternative in any final record of decision,
environmental impact statement, or environmental assessment
completed after the date of enactment of this paragraph
unless the Secretary determines that the mitigation plan for
the alternative will successfully mitigate the adverse
impacts of the project on aquatic and terrestrial resources,
hydrologic functions, and fish and wildlife.
``(6) Implementation of mitigation before construction of
new projects.--The Secretary shall implement all mitigation
required by a record of decision for water resources projects
in a particular district of the Corps before beginning
physical construction of any new water resources project (or
separable element of such a project) in that district.''.
SEC. 202. CONCURRENT MITIGATION.
Section 906(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(a)(1) In the case'' and inserting the
following:
``(a) Mitigation.--
``(1) In general.--In the case'';
(2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``interests--'' and all
that follows through ``losses),'' and inserting the
following: ``interests shall be undertaken or acquired--
``(A) before any construction of the project (other than
such acquisition) commences; or
``(B) concurrently with the acquisition of land and
interests in land for project purposes (other than mitigation
of fish and wildlife losses);'';
(3) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(2) For the purposes''
and inserting the following:
``(2) Commencement of construction.--For the purpose''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Implementation.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
to ensure concurrent mitigation, the Secretary shall
implement--
``(i) 50 percent of required mitigation before beginning
construction of a project; and
``(ii) the remainder of required mitigation as
expeditiously as practicable, but not later than the last day
of construction of the project or separable element of the
project.
``(B) Exception for physical impracticability.--In a case
in which the Secretary determines that it is physically
impracticable to complete mitigation by the last day
[[Page S3430]]
of construction of the project or separable element of the
project, the Secretary shall reserve or reprogram sufficient
funds to ensure that mitigation implementation is completed
as expeditiously as practicable, but in no case later than
the end of the next fiscal year immediately following the
last day of that construction.
``(4) Use of funds.--Funds made available for preliminary
engineering and design, construction, or operations and
maintenance shall be available for use in carrying out this
section.''.
SEC. 203. MITIGATION TRACKING SYSTEM.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a
recordkeeping system to track each water resources project
constructed, operated, or maintained by the Secretary, and
for each permit issued under section 404 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344)--
(1) the quantity and type of wetland and other habitat
types affected by the project, project operation, or
permitted activity;
(2) the quantity and type of mitigation required for the
project, project operation or permitted activity;
(3) the quantity and type of mitigation that has been
completed for the project, project operation or permitted
activity; and
(4) the status of monitoring for the mitigation carried out
for the project, project operation or permitted activity.
(b) Required Information and Organization.--The
recordkeeping system shall--
(1) include information on impacts and mitigation described
in subsection (a) that occur after December 31, 1969; and
(2) be organized by watershed, project, permit application,
and zip code.
(c) Availability of Information.--The Secretary shall make
information contained in the recordkeeping system available
to the public on the Internet.
TITLE III--IMPROVING ACCOUNTABILITY
SEC. 301. FISCAL TRANSPARENCY REPORT.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Construction.--The term ``construction'' includes any
physical work carried out under a construction contract
relating to a water resources project.
(2) Physical work.--The term ``physical work'' does not
include any activity relating to--
(A) project planning;
(B) project engineering and design;
(C) relocation; or
(D) the acquisition of land, an easement, or a right-of-
way.
(b) Report.--
(1) In general.--On the third Tuesday of January of each
year beginning after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Chief of Engineers shall submit to the Committee of
Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives a fiscal transparency report describing--
(A) the expenditures of the Corps during the preceding
fiscal year;
(B) the estimated expenditures of the Corps for the fiscal
year during which the report is submitted; and
(C) a list of projects that the Chief of Engineers expects
to complete during the fiscal year during which the report is
submitted.
(2) Contents.--In addition to the information described in
paragraph (1), the report shall contain a detailed account
of--
(A) for each general construction project that is under
construction on the date of submission of the report, or for
which there is a signed cost-sharing agreement, complete
information regarding planning, engineering, and design of
the project, including--
(i) the primary purpose of the project;
(ii) each allocation made to the project on or before the
date of submission of the report;
(iii) a description of any construction carried out
relating to the project;
(iv) the projected date of completion of construction of
the project;
(v) the estimated annual Federal cost of completing
construction of the project on or before the projected date
under clause (iv); and
(vi) the date of completion of the most recent feasibility
study, reevaluation report, and environmental review of the
project;
(B) for each general investigation and reconnaissance and
feasibility study, information including--
(i) the number of studies initiated on or before the date
of submission of the report;
(ii) the number of studies in progress on the date of
submission of the report;
(iii) the number of studies expected to be completed during
the fiscal year; and
(iv) a list of any completed study of a project that is not
authorized for construction on the date of submission of the
report, and the date of completion of the study;
(C) for each inland and intracoastal waterway operated and
maintained under section 206 of the Inland Waterways Revenue
Act of 1978 (33 U.S.C. 1804), information including--
(i) the estimated annual cost of operating and maintaining
the reach of the waterway at the depth of the waterway;
(ii) the actual cost of operating and maintaining the reach
of the waterway at the depth of the waterway during the
previous fiscal year; and
(iii) the number of barges (including the number of loaded
barges) and the total tonnage shipped over each waterway
during the preceding fiscal year; and
(D) for each water resources project (or separable element
of such a project) that is authorized for construction, for
which Federal funds have not been obligated for construction
during any of the 4 preceding fiscal years, information
including--
(i) the primary purpose of the project;
(ii) the date of authorization of the project;
(iii) each allocation made to the project on or before the
date of submission of the report, including the amount and
type of the allocation;
(iv) the percentage of construction of the project that has
been completed on the date of submission of the report;
(v) the estimated cost of completing the project, and the
percentage of estimated total costs that has been obligated
to the project on or before the date of submission of the
report;
(vi)(I) a benefit-cost analysis of the project, expressed
as a ratio using current discount rates;
(II) the estimated annual benefits and annual costs of the
project; and
(III) the date on which any economic data used to justify
the project was collected;
(vii) the date of completion of the most recent feasibility
study, reevaluation report, and environmental review of the
project; and
(viii) a brief explanation of any reason why Federal funds
have not been obligated for construction of the project.
(c) Congressional and Public Notifications.--On submission
of a report under this section, the Secretary shall notify
each Senator in the State of whom, and each Member of the
House of Representatives in the district of whom, a project
identified in the report is located.
(d) Publication.--For any report under this section, the
Secretary shall--
(1) publish the report in the Federal Register; and
(2) make the report available to--
(A) any person, on receipt of a request of the person; and
(B) the public on the Internet.
SEC. 302. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.
Section 1001 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 579a) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Construction.--The term `construction' includes any
physical work carried out under a construction contract
relating to a water resources project.
``(2) Physical work.--The term `physical work' does not
include any activity relating to--
``(A) project planning;
``(B) project engineering and design;
``(C) relocation; or
``(D) the acquisition of land, an easement, or a right-of-
way.
``(b) Deauthorizations.--
``(1) In general.--Effective beginning on the date that is
30 months after the date of submission of a fiscal
transparency report under section 301 of the Corps of
Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act of 2005, each
project identified under section 301(b)(2)(D) of that Act
shall be deauthorized unless Federal funds were obligated for
construction of the project during the preceding 30 months.
``(2) Effect of paragraph.--Paragraph (1) does not apply--
``(A) in the case of a beach nourishment project, beginning
on the date on which initial construction of the project is
completed; or
``(B) in the case of any other project, beginning on the
date on which construction of the project is completed.
``(c) Final Deauthorization List.--The Secretary shall
annually publish in the Federal Register a list of all
projects deauthorized under this section.''.
______
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Durbin):
S. 754. A bill to ensure that the Federal student loans are delivered
as efficiently as possible, so that there is more grant aid for
students; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 754
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 ``Student Aid Reward Act of
2005''.
SEC. 2. STUDENT AID REWARD PROGRAM.
Part G of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1088 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section
489 the following:
``SEC. 489A. STUDENT AID REWARD PROGRAM.
``(a) Program Authorized.--The Secretary shall carry out a
Student Aid Reward Program to encourage institutions of
higher education to participate in the student loan program
under this title that is most cost-effective for taxpayers.
``(b) Program Requirements.--In carrying out the Student
Aid Reward Program, the Secretary shall--
``(1) provide to each institution of higher education
participating in the student loan program under this title
that is most cost-effective for taxpayers, a Student Aid
Reward Payment, in an amount determined in accordance with
subsection (c), to encourage
[[Page S3431]]
the institution to participate in that student loan program;
``(2) require each institution of higher education
receiving a payment under this section to provide student
loans under such student loan program for a period of 5 years
after the date the first payment is made under this section;
``(3) where appropriate, require that funds paid to
institutions of higher education under this section be used
to award students a supplement to such students' Federal Pell
Grants under subpart 1 of part A;
``(4) permit such funds to also be used to award need-based
grants to lower- and middle-income graduate students; and
``(5) encourage all institutions of higher education to
participate in the Student Aid Reward Program under this
section.
``(c) Amount.--The amount of a Student Aid Reward Payment
under this section shall be not less than 50 percent of the
savings to the Federal Government generated by the
institution of higher education's participation in the
student loan program under this title that is most cost-
effective for taxpayers instead of the institution's
participation in the student loan program that is not most
cost-effective for taxpayers.
``(d) Trigger to Ensure Cost Neutrality.--
``(1) Limit to ensure cost neutrality.--Notwithstanding
subsection (c), the Secretary shall not distribute Student
Aid Reward Payments under the Student Aid Reward Program
that, in the aggregate, exceed the Federal savings resulting
from the implementation of the Student Aid Reward Program.
``(2) Federal savings.--In calculating Federal savings, as
used in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall determine Federal
savings on loans made to students at institutions of higher
education that participate in the student loan program under
this title that is most cost-effective for taxpayers and
that, on the date of enactment of the Student Aid Reward Act
of 2005, participated in the student loan program that is not
most cost-effective for taxpayers, resulting from the
difference of--
``(A) the Federal cost of loan volume made under the
student loan program under this title that is most cost-
effective for taxpayers; and
``(B) the Federal cost of an equivalent type and amount of
loan volume made, insured, or guaranteed under the student
loan program under this title that is not most cost-effective
for taxpayers.
``(3) Distribution rules.--If the Federal savings
determined under paragraph (2) is not sufficient to
distribute full Student Aid Reward Payments under the Student
Aid Reward Program, the Secretary shall--
``(A) first make Student Aid Reward Payments to those
institutions of higher education that participated in the
student loan program under this title that is not most cost-
effective for taxpayers on the date of enactment of the
Student Aid Reward Act of 2005; and
``(B) with any remaining Federal savings after making
Student Aid Reward Payments under subparagraph (A), make
Student Aid Reward Payments to the institutions of higher
education eligible for a Student Aid Reward Payment and not
described in subparagraph (A) on a pro-rata basis.
``(4) Distribution to students.--Any institution of higher
education that receives a Student Aid Reward Payment under
this section--
``(A) shall distribute, where appropriate, part or all of
such payment among the students of such institution who are
Federal Pell Grant recipients by awarding such students a
supplemental grant; and
``(B) may distribute part of such payment as a supplemental
grant to graduate students in financial need.
``(5) Estimates, adjustments, and carry over.--
``(A) Estimates and adjustments.--The Secretary shall make
Student Aid Reward Payments to institutions of higher
education on the basis of estimates, using the best data
available at the beginning of an academic or fiscal year. If
the Secretary determines thereafter that loan program costs
for that academic or fiscal year were different than such
estimate, the Secretary shall adjust by reducing or
increasing subsequent Student Aid Reward Payments rewards
paid to such institutions of higher education to reflect such
difference.
``(B) Carry over.--Any institution of higher education that
receives a reduced Student Aid Reward Payment under paragraph
(3)(B), shall remain eligible for the unpaid portion of such
institution's financial reward payment, as well as any
additional financial reward payments for which the
institution is otherwise eligible, in subsequent academic or
fiscal years.
``(e) Definition.--In this section:
``(1) Student loan program under this title that is most
cost-effective for taxpayers.--The term `student loan program
under this title that is most cost-effective for taxpayers'
means the loan program under part B or D of this title that
has the lowest overall cost to the Federal Government
(including administrative costs) for the loans authorized by
such parts.
``(2) Student loan program under this title that is not
most cost-effective for taxpayers.--The term `student loan
program under this title that is not most cost-effective for
taxpayers' means the loan program under part B or D of this
title that does not have the lowest overall cost to the
Federal Government (including administrative costs) for the
loans authorized by such parts.''.
By Mr. BENNETT (for himself, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Shelby, and Mr. Hatch):
S. 756. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to enhance
public and health professional awareness and understanding of lupus and
to strengthen the Nation's research efforts to identify the causes and
cure of lupus; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lupus--
Research, Education, Awareness, Communication, Health Care--or REACH
Amendments of 2005. This bill will strengthen the Nation's research
efforts to identify the causes and cure of lupus, improve lupus data
collection and epidemiology, and enhance public and health professional
awareness and understanding of lupus--one of the Nation's most
devastating, yet least understood autoimmune diseases. It has been
almost 40 years since the FDA has approved a drug specifically to treat
lupus.
Lupus is a life-threatening, life diminishing autoimmune disease that
can cause inflammation and tissue damage to virtually any organ system
in the body, including the skin, joints, other connective tissue, blood
and blood vessels, heart, lungs, kidney, and brain. It affects women
nine times more often than men and 80 percent of newly diagnosed cases
of lupus develop among women of child-bearing age.
This disease is not well known or well understood despite the fact
that according to the Lupus Foundation of America at least 1.5 to 2
million Americans live with some form of lupus. Many are either
misdiagnosed or not diagnosed at all. As the prototypical autoimmune
disease, discoveries on lupus may apply to more than 20 other
autoimmune diseases.
Of serious concern is that this disease disproportionately affects
women of color--it is two to three times more common among African-
Americans, Hispanics, Asians and Native Americans--a health disparity
that remains unexplained. According to the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention the rate of lupus mortality has increased since the late
1970s and is higher among older African-American women. Comprehensive
and definitive epidemiologic studies will help improve our
understanding of these health disparities and move us toward closing
the gaps.
The symptoms of lupus make diagnosis difficult because they are
sporadic and imitate the symptoms of many other illnesses. If diagnosed
promptly and properly treated, the majority of lupus cases can be
controlled. Unfortunately, because of the dearth of medical research on
lupus and the length of time it takes to make a diagnosis, many lupus
patients suffer debilitating pain and fatigue. The resulting effects
make it difficult, if not impossible, for these individuals to carry on
normal everyday activities, including work. Thousands of these
debilitating cases needlessly end in death each year. Our Nation must
do more to ensure that health professionals are aware of its signs and
symptoms so that people with lupus can receive the prompt, appropriate
care they need and deserve.
The Lupus REACH Amendments of 2005 seek to expand biomedical research
and strengthen lupus epidemiology. This bill authorizes a study and
report by the Institute of Medicine, IOM, evaluating various Federal
and State activities and research. This legislation will raise public
awareness of lupus and improve health professional education. It aims
to promote increased awareness of early intervention and treatment,
direct communication and education efforts, and target at-risk women
and health professionals to help them quickly achieve a correct
diagnosis of lupus.
I would urge all my colleagues, to join me in sponsoring this
legislation to increase research, education, and awareness of lupus.
______
By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. Biden, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Durbin,
and Mr. Smith):
S. 759. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make
higher education more affordable, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
[[Page S3432]]
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 759
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 ``Make College Affordable Act
of 2005''.
SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF DEDUCTION FOR HIGHER EDUCATION EXPENSES.
(a) Amount of Deduction.--Subsection (b) of section 222 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to deduction for
qualified tuition and related expenses) is amended to read as
follows:
``(b) Limitations.--
``(1) Dollar limitations.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amount allowed as a deduction under subsection (a) with
respect to the taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed
the applicable dollar limit.
``(B) Applicable dollar limit.--The applicable dollar limit
for any taxable year shall be determined as follows:
``Taxable year: Applicable dollar amount:
2005.............................................................$8,000
2006 and thereafter............................................$12,000.
``(2) Limitation based on modified adjusted gross income.--
``(A) In general.--The amount which would (but for this
paragraph) be taken into account under subsection (a) shall
be reduced (but not below zero) by the amount determined
under subparagraph (B).
``(B) Amount of reduction.--The amount determined under
this subparagraph equals the amount which bears the same
ratio to the amount which would be so taken into account as--
``(i) the excess of--
``(I) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for
such taxable year, over
``(II) $65,000 ($130,000 in the case of a joint return),
bears to
``(ii) $15,000 ($30,000 in the case of a joint return).
``(C) Modified adjusted gross income.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term `modified adjusted gross income' means
the adjusted gross income of the taxpayer for the taxable
year determined--
``(i) without regard to this section and sections 199, 911,
931, and 933, and
``(ii) after the application of sections 86, 135, 137, 219,
221, and 469.
For purposes of the sections referred to in clause (ii),
adjusted gross income shall be determined without regard to
the deduction allowed under this section.
``(D) Inflation adjustments.--
``(i) In general.--In the case of any taxable year
beginning in a calendar year after 2005, both of the dollar
amounts in subparagraph (B)(i)(II) shall be increased by an
amount equal to--
``(I) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(II) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable
year begins, by substituting `calendar year 2004' for
`calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
``(ii) Rounding.--If any amount as adjusted under clause
(i) is not a multiple of $50, such amount shall be rounded to
the nearest multiple of $50.''.
(b) Qualified Tuition and Related Expenses of Eligible
Students.--
(1) In general.--Section 222(a) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to allowance of deduction) is amended
by inserting ``of eligible students'' after ``expenses''.
(2) Definition of eligible student.--Section 222(d) of such
Code (relating to definitions and special rules) is amended
by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (6) as paragraphs (3)
through (7), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph
(1) the following new paragraph:
``(2) Eligible student.--The term `eligible student' has
the meaning given such term by section 25A(b)(3).''.
(c) Deduction Made Permanent.--Title IX of the Economic
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (relating to
sunset of provisions of such Act) shall not apply to the
amendments made by section 431 of such Act.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to payments made in taxable years beginning after
December 31, 2004.
SEC. 3. CREDIT FOR INTEREST ON HIGHER EDUCATION LOANS.
(a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
nonrefundable personal credits) is amended by inserting after
section 25B the following new section:
``SEC. 25C. INTEREST ON HIGHER EDUCATION LOANS.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an individual,
there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by
this chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to the
interest paid by the taxpayer during the taxable year on any
qualified education loan.
``(b) Maximum Credit.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
credit allowed by subsection (a) for the taxable year shall
not exceed $1,500.
``(2) Limitation based on modified adjusted gross income.--
``(A) In general.--If the modified adjusted gross income of
the taxpayer for the taxable year exceeds $50,000 ($100,000
in the case of a joint return), the amount which would (but
for this paragraph) be allowable as a credit under this
section shall be reduced (but not below zero) by the amount
which bears the same ratio to the amount which would be so
allowable as such excess bears to $20,000 ($40,000 in the
case of a joint return).
``(B) Modified adjusted gross income.--The term `modified
adjusted gross income' means adjusted gross income determined
without regard to sections 199, 222, 911, 931, and 933.
``(C) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of any taxable
year beginning after 2005, the $50,000 and $100,000 amounts
referred to in subparagraph (A) shall be increased by an
amount equal to--
``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section (1)(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable
year begins, by substituting `2004' for `1992'.
``(D) Rounding.--If any amount as adjusted under
subparagraph (C) is not a multiple of $50, such amount shall
be rounded to the nearest multiple of $50.
``(c) Dependents Not Eligible for Credit.--No credit shall
be allowed by this section to an individual for the taxable
year if a deduction under section 151 with respect to such
individual is allowed to another taxpayer for the taxable
year beginning in the calendar year in which such
individual's taxable year begins.
``(d) Limit on Period Credit Allowed.--A credit shall be
allowed under this section only with respect to interest paid
on any qualified education loan during the first 60 months
(whether or not consecutive) in which interest payments are
required. For purposes of this paragraph, any loan and all
refinancings of such loan shall be treated as 1 loan.
``(e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Qualified education loan.--The term `qualified
education loan' has the meaning given such term by section
221(d)(1).
``(2) Dependent.--The term `dependent' has the meaning
given such term by section 152.
``(f) Special Rules.--
``(1) Denial of double benefit.--No credit shall be allowed
under this section for any amount taken into account for any
deduction under any other provision of this chapter.
``(2) Married couples must file joint return.--If the
taxpayer is married at the close of the taxable year, the
credit shall be allowed under subsection (a) only if the
taxpayer and the taxpayer's spouse file a joint return for
the taxable year.
``(3) Marital status.--Marital status shall be determined
in accordance with section 7703.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for
subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 25B the following new item:
``Sec. 25C. Interest on higher education loans.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to any qualified education loan (as defined in
section 25C(e)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
added by this section) incurred on, before, or after the date
of the enactment of this Act, but only with respect to any
loan interest payment due after December 31, 2004.
______
Mr. INOUYE (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Dodd, Mr.
DeWine, and Mr. Conrad):
S. 760. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide a
means for continued improvement in emergency medical services for
children; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. Inouye. Mr. President, today I introduce ``The Wakefield Act,''
also known as the ``Emergency Medical Services for Children Act of
2005'' along with my colleagues Mr. Hatch, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Dodd, Mr.
DeWine, and Mr. Conrad. Since Senator Hatch and I worked toward
authorization of EMSC in 1984, this program has been the driving force
toward improving a wide range of children's emergency services. From
specialized training for emergency care providers to ensuring
ambulances and emergency departments have state-of-the-art pediatric-
sized equipment, EMSC has provided the vehicle for improving survival
of our smallest citizens when accidents or medical emergencies
threatened their lives.
It remains no secret that children present unique anatomic,
physiologic, emotional and developmental challenges to our primarily
adult-oriented emergency medical system. As has been said many times
before, children are not little adults. Evaluation and treatment must
take into account their special needs, or we risk letting them fall
through the gap between
[[Page S3433]]
adult and pediatric care. EMSC has bridged that gap while fostering
collaborative relationships among emergency medical technicians,
paramedics, nurses, emergency physicians, surgeons, and pediatricians.
Yet, with the increasing number of children with special healthcare
needs, the looming prospect of bioterrorism and the increasing
importance of disaster preparedness, gaps still remain in our emergency
healthcare delivery system for children. Re-authorization of EMSC will
ensure children's needs are given the attention and priority necessary
to coordinate and expand services for victims of life-threatening
illnesses and injuries.
I join the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of
Emergency Physicians, the American College of Surgeons, and thirty
other supporting healthcare organizations in celebrating the 20th
anniversary of the EMSC program. EMSC remains the only Federal program
dedicated to examining the best ways to deliver various forms of care
to children in emergency settings. I look forward to re-authorization
of this important legislation and the continued advances in our
emergency healthcare delivery system.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 760
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 ``Wakefield Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) There are 31,000,000 child and adolescent visits to the
nation's emergency departments every year, with children
under the age of 3 years accounting for most of these visits.
(2) Ninety percent of children requiring emergency care are
seen in general hospitals, not in free-standing children's
hospitals, with one-quarter to one-third of the patients
being children in the typical general hospital emergency
department.
(3) Severe asthma and respiratory distress are the most
common emergencies for pediatric patients, representing
nearly one-third of all hospitalizations among children under
the age of 15 years, while seizures, shock, and airway
obstruction are other common pediatric emergencies, followed
by cardiac arrest and severe trauma.
(4) Up to 20 percent of children needing emergency care
have underlying medical conditions such as asthma, diabetes,
sickle-cell disease, low birthweight, and bronchopulmonary
dysplasia.
(5) Significant gaps remain in emergency medical care
delivered to children, with 43 percent of hospitals lacking
cervical collars (used to stabilize spinal injuries) for
infants, less than half (47 percent) of hospitals with no
pediatric intensive care unit having a written transfer
agreement with a hospital that does have such a unit, one-
third of States lacking a physician available on-call 24
hours a day to provide medical direction to emergency medical
technicians or other non-physician emergency care providers,
and even those States with such availability lacking full
State coverage.
(6) Providers must be educated and trained to manage
children's unique physical and psychological needs in
emergency situations, and emergency systems must be equipped
with the resources needed to care for this especially
vulnerable population.
(7) The Emergency Medical Services for Children (EMSC)
Program under section 1910 of the Public Health Service Act
(42 U.S.C. 300w-9) is the only Federal program that focuses
specifically on improving the pediatric components of
emergency medical care.
(8) The EMSC Program promotes the nationwide exchange of
pediatric emergency medical care knowledge and collaboration
by those with an interest in such care and is depended upon
by Federal agencies and national organizations to ensure that
this exchange of knowledge and collaboration takes place.
(9) The EMSC Program also supports a multi-institutional
network for research in pediatric emergency medicine, thus
allowing providers to rely on evidence rather than anecdotal
experience when treating ill or injured children.
(10) States are better equipped to handle occurrences of
critical or traumatic injury due to advances fostered by the
EMSC program, with--
(A) forty-eight States identifying and requiring all EMSC-
recommended pediatric equipment on Advanced Life Support
ambulances;
(B) forty-four States employing pediatric protocols for
medical direction;
(C) forty-one States utilizing pediatric guidelines for
acute care facility identification, ensuring that children
get to the right hospital in a timely manner; and
(D) thirty-six of the forty-two States having statewide
computerized data collection systems now producing reports on
pediatric emergency medical services using statewide data.
(11) Systems of care must be continually maintained,
updated, and improved to ensure that research is translated
into practice, best practices are adopted, training is
current, and standards and protocols are appropriate.
(12) Now celebrating its twentieth anniversary, the EMSC
Program has proven effective over two decades in driving key
improvements in emergency medical services to children, and
should continue its mission to reduce child and youth
morbidity and mortality by supporting improvements in the
quality of all emergency medical and emergency surgical care
children receive.
(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to reduce child
and youth morbidity and mortality by supporting improvements
in the quality of all emergency medical care children
receive.
SEC. 3. REAUTHORIZATION OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FOR
CHILDREN PROGRAM.
Section 1910 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300w-9) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``3-year period (with an
optional 4th year'' and inserting ``4-year period (with an
optional 5th year'';
(2) in subsection (d)--
(A) by striking ``and such sums'' and inserting ``such
sums''; and
(B) by inserting before the period the following:
``$23,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, and such sums as may be
necessary for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2010'';
(3) by redesignating subsections (b) through (d) as
subsections (c) through (e), respectively; and
(4) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b)(1) The purpose of the program established under this
section is to reduce child and youth morbidity and mortality
by supporting improvements in the quality of all emergency
medical care children receive, through the promotion of
projects focused on the expansion and improvement of such
services, including those in rural areas and those for
children with special healthcare needs. In carrying out this
purpose, the Secretary shall support emergency medical
services for children by supporting projects that--
``(A) develop and present scientific evidence;
``(B) promote existing and innovative technologies
appropriate for the care of children: or
``(C) provide information on health outcomes and
effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.
``(2) The program established under this section shall--
``(A) strive to enhance the pediatric capability of
emergency medical service systems originally designed
primarily for adults; and
``(B) in order to avoid duplication and ensure that Federal
resources are used efficiently and effectively, be
coordinated with all research, evaluations, and awards
related to emergency medical services for children undertaken
and supported by the Federal Government.''.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Inouye in
introducing ``The Wakefield Act'', which reauthorizes the Emergency
Medical Services for Children (EMSC) program. It has been 20 years
since Senator Inouye and I first worked for passage of the original
bill authorizing the EMSC program. We embarked upon this partnership
after realizing that there was a critical gap in our Nation's ability
to provide emergency medical services for the most precious segment of
our population: our children.
Since the Emergency Medical Services for Children Act was first
passed, its programs have spread across the nation, enhancing the care
received in the more than 31 million visits made by children and
adolescents to our nation's emergency departments every year. In part
due to this program, the pediatric death rate from injuries has fallen
40 percent over the last 20 years. Imagine that--40 percent! In that
light, it is extremely disappointing that President Bush would
recommend eliminating funding for this very important program.
More than 30 groups have endorsed this legislation, including the
American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Emergency
Physicians, American College of Surgeons, Brain Injury Association of
America, Emergency Nurses Association, Family Violence Prevention Fund,
National Association of Children's Hospitals, National Association of
Emergency Medical Technicians, Rural Metro Corporation, Society for
Pediatric Research, and the Society of Critical Care Medicine.
While much has been accomplished, more remains to be done. Children's
physiology and response to illness and injury differ significantly from
those of
[[Page S3434]]
adults, necessitating specialized training to recognize and treat these
patients properly. Ninety percent of the children who require emergency
care receive it in general hospitals, not in free-standing specialty
children's hospitals. Of those hospitals that lack pediatric intensive
care units, only 47 percent have appropriate written transfer
agreements with hospitals that do have such specialized units. One-
third of states do not have a physician available on-call 24 hours to
provide medical direction to EMTs or other non-physician emergency care
providers. Of those states that do, many do not have full state
coverage.
It is clear that despite the progress made since the Emergency
Medical Services for Children Act was first enacted, deficiencies in
our pediatric emergency care system remain. What is more, the need for
a strong and healthy population, as well as a robust, prepared, and
responsive health care system, has never been greater. This cannot
occur in the absence of an emergency medical structure that is fully
trained and ready to care for our nation's youth.
The Wakefield Act fills this role by supporting states' efforts to
improve the care of children within their emergency medical services
systems. EMSC-supported projects include strengthening emergency care
infrastructures, assessing local provider needs, and developing
comprehensive education and training modules. The impact of this
program is undeniable: in 2003, 78 percent of States reported that
either all or some of their pediatric emergency training programs were
dependent on EMSC grant funding.
The EMSC program also ensures timely distribution of best practices
and lessons learned in the area of pediatric emergency care, as well as
facilitating the sharing of innovations through its national resource
center. Furthermore, EMSC-supported projects have a proven record of
success at the State and local level. For example, in 1997, no State
disaster plan had specific pediatric components, but by 2003, 13 EMSC
projects were working actively with their State's disaster preparedness
offices to address children's needs in the event of a disaster.
I am proud that my home State of Utah has played a vital role in
advancing the level of emergency medical care for children and
teenagers. Working with the Emergency Medical Services for Children
program, Utah has participated in the Intermountain Regional Emergency
Medical Services for Children Coordinating Council. The University of
Utah is home to both the National Emergency Medical Services for
Children Data Analysis Resource Center and the Central Data Management
Coordinating Center for the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research
Network. Utah-based projects also helped pioneer the development of
training materials on caring for special needs pediatric patients.
Over the course of its 20 year history, the Emergency Medical
Services for Children program has made great strides in improving the
lives of our Nation's children. It has largely eliminated discrepancies
in regulations among States, establishing a national norm and making
children's issues in emergency medical care a priority. The national
EMSC program is a dynamic and flexible program that has proved to be
responsive to both the Nation's and the individual States' needs. The
program has funded pediatric emergency care improvement initiatives in
every State, territory and the District of Columbia, as well as
national improvement programs.
I urge my colleagues to support this important and necessary
legislation.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to support the introduction
of the Wakefie1d Act, which will reauthorize the Emergency Medical
Services for Children, EMSC, program. This program is the only Federal
program that focuses specifically on improving the quality of
children's emergency care. With more than 31 million child and
adolescent visits to emergency rooms each year, the EMSC program is
important to ensuring that our children receive the best trauma care
available.
As research shows, first responders cannot treat children as small
adults, a different approach is needed. The EMSC program provides vital
funding to States to improve the quality of pediatric emergency care.
EMSC funds can be used for a variety of initiatives, including for the
purchase of child appropriate equipment and training programs for
nurses, physicians and emergency responders. These funds fill an
important need. For example, 43 percent of hospitals in this country
lack cervical collars for infants. The EMSC program is helping to
address inadequacies in our Nation's EMS system.
This bill is particularly important to me because it is named for the
family of a dear friend of mine, Mary Wakefield, who suffered a
horrible tragedy this past January. Mary lost her brother, Thomas
Wakefield, and two of his children, Mikal and Nicole, in a car
accident. This terrible tragedy highlights the importance of providing
appropriate training and equipment for children involved in trauma
cases, and I urge all of my colleagues to cosponsor this important
legislation.
____________________