[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 43 (Wednesday, April 13, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3557-S3565]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 769. A bill to enhance compliance assistance for small businesses; 
to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as Chair of the Senate Committee on Small 
Business and Entrepreneurship, regulatory fairness remains one of my 
top priorities. In 1996, I was pleased to support, along with all of my 
colleagues, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, 
SBREFA, which made the Regulatory Flexibility Act more effective in 
curtailing the impact of regulations on small businesses. One of the 
most important provisions of SBREFA compels agencies to produce 
compliance assistance materials to help small businesses satisfy the 
requirements of agency regulations. Unfortunately, over the years, 
agencies have failed to achieve this requirement. Consequently, small 
businesses have been forced to figure out on their own how to comply 
with these regulations. This makes compliance that much more difficult 
to achieve, and therefore reduces the effectiveness of the regulations.
  The Government Accountability Office, GAO, found that agencies have 
ignored this requirement or failed miserably in their attempts to 
satisfy it. The GAO also found that SBREFA's language is unclear in 
some places about what is actually required. That is why today, I am 
introducing The Small Business Compliance Assistance Enhancement Act of 
2005, to close those loopholes, and to make it clear that we were 
serious when we first told agencies, and that we want them to produce 
quality compliance assistance materials to help small businesses 
understand how to deal with regulations.
  My bill is drawn directly from the GAO recommendations and is 
intended only to clarify an already existing requirement--not to add 
anything new. Similarly, the compliance guides that the agencies will 
produce will be suggestions about how to satisfy a regulation's 
requirements, and will not impose further requirements or additional 
enforcement measures. Nor does this bill, in any way, interfere or 
undercut agencies' ability to enforce their regulations to the full 
extent they currently enjoy. Bad actors must be brought to justice, but 
if the only trigger for compliance is the threat of enforcement, then 
agencies will never achieve the goals at which their regulations are 
directed.
  The key to helping small businesses comply with these regulations is 
to provide assistance--showing them what is necessary and how they will 
be able to tell when they have met their obligations. Too often, small 
businesses do not maintain the staff, or possess the resources to 
answer these questions. This is a disadvantage when compared to larger 
businesses, and reduces the effectiveness of the agency's regulations. 
The SBA's Office of Advocacy has determined that regulatory compliance 
costs small businesses with less than 20 employees almost $7,000 per 
employee, compared to almost $4,500 for companies with more than 500 
employees. If an agency can not describe how to comply with its 
regulation, how can we expect a small business to figure it out? This 
is the reason the requirement to provide compliance assistance was 
originally included in SBREFA. That reason is as valid today as it was 
in 1996.
  Specifically, my bill would do the following:
  Clarify how a guide shall be designated: Section 212 of SBREFA 
currently requires that agencies ``designate'' the publications 
prepared under the section as small entity compliance guides. However, 
the form in which those designations should occur is not clear. 
Consistent use of the phrase ``Small Entity Compliance Guide'' in the 
title could make it easier for small entities to locate the guides that 
the agencies develop. This would also aid in using on line searches--a 
technology that was not widely used when SBREFA was passed. Thus, 
agencies would be directed to publish guides entitled ``Small Entity 
Compliance Guide.''
  Clarify how a guide shall be published: Section 212 currently states 
agencies ``shall publish'' the guides, but does not indicate where or 
how they should be published. At least one agency has published the 
guides as part of the preamble to the subject rule, thereby requiring 
affected small entities to read the Federal Register to obtain the 
guides. Agencies would be directed, at a minimum, to make their 
compliance guides available through their websites in an easily 
accessible way. In addition, agencies would be directed to forward 
their compliance guides to known industry contacts such as small 
businesses or associations with small business members that will be 
affected by the regulation.
  Clarify when a guide shall be published: Section 212 does not 
indicate when the compliance guides should be published. Therefore, 
even if an agency is required to produce a compliance guide, it can 
claim that it has not violated the publishing requirement because there 
is no clear deadline. Agencies would be instructed to publish the 
compliance guides simultaneously with, or as soon as possible after, 
the final rule is published, provided that the guides must be published 
no later than the effective date of the rule's compliance requirements.
  Clarify the term ``compliance requirements'': The term ``compliance 
requirements'' also needs to be clarified. At a minimum, compliance 
requirements must identify what small

[[Page S3558]]

businesses must do to satisfy the requirements and how they will know 
that they have met these requirements. This should include a 
description of the procedures a small business might use to meet the 
requirements. For example, if, as is the case with many OSHA and EPA 
regulations, testing is required, the agency should explain how that 
testing might be conducted. The bill makes clear that the procedural 
description should be merely suggestive--an agency would not be able to 
enforce this procedure if a small business was able to satisfy the 
requirements through a different approach.
  It is time we get serious about ensuring that small businesses have 
the assistance they need to deal with the maze of Federal regulations 
we expect them to handle on a daily basis. The Small Business 
Compliance Assistance Enhancement Act of 2005 will make a significant 
contribution to that effort.
  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. 769

       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 ``Small Business Compliance 
     Assistance Enhancement Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Small businesses represent 99.7 percent of all 
     employers, employ half of all private sector employees, and 
     pay 44.3 percent of total United States private payroll.
       (2) Small businesses generated 60 to 80 percent of net new 
     jobs annually over the last decade.
       (3) Very small firms with fewer than 20 employees spend 60 
     percent more per employee than larger firms to comply with 
     Federal regulations. Small firms spend twice as much on tax 
     compliance as their larger counterparts. Based on an analysis 
     in 2001, firms employing fewer than 20 employees face an 
     annual regulatory burden of nearly $7,000 per employee, 
     compared to a burden of almost $4,500 per employee for a firm 
     with over 500 employees.
       (4) Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory 
     Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 601 note) requires 
     agencies to produce small entity compliance guides for each 
     rule or group of rules for which an agency is required to 
     prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis under section 
     604 of title 5, United States Code.
       (5) The Government Accountability Office has found that 
     agencies have rarely attempted to comply with section 212 of 
     the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
     1996 (5 U.S.C. 601 note). When agencies did try to comply 
     with that requirement, they generally did not produce 
     adequate compliance assistance materials.
       (6) The Government Accountability Office also found that 
     section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
     Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 601 note) and other sections 
     of that Act need clarification to be effective.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are the following:
       (1) To clarify the requirement contained in section 212 of 
     the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
     1996 (5 U.S.C. 601 note) for agencies to produce small entity 
     compliance guides.
       (2) To clarify other terms relating to the requirement in 
     section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
     Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 601 note).
       (3) To ensure that agencies produce adequate and useful 
     compliance assistance materials to help small businesses meet 
     the obligations imposed by regulations affecting such small 
     businesses, and to increase compliance with these 
     regulations.

     SEC. 3. ENHANCED COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE FOR SMALL BUSINESSES.

       (a) In General.--Section 212 of the Small Business 
     Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 601 
     note) is amended by striking subsection (a) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a) Compliance Guide.--
       ``(1) In general.--For each rule or group of related rules 
     for which an agency is required to prepare a final regulatory 
     flexibility analysis under section 605(b) of title 5, United 
     States Code, the agency shall publish 1 or more guides to 
     assist small entities in complying with the rule and shall 
     entitle such publications `small entity compliance guides'.
       ``(2) Publication of guides.--The publication of each guide 
     under this subsection shall include--
       ``(A) the posting of the guide in an easily identified 
     location on the website of the agency; and
       ``(B) distribution of the guide to known industry contacts, 
     such as small entities, associations, or industry leaders 
     affected by the rule.
       ``(3) Publication date.--An agency shall publish each guide 
     (including the posting and distribution of the guide as 
     described under paragraph (2))--
       ``(A) on the same date as the date of publication of the 
     final rule (or as soon as possible after that date); and
       ``(B) not later than the date on which the requirements of 
     that rule become effective.
       ``(4) Compliance actions.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each guide shall explain the actions a 
     small entity is required to take to comply with a rule.
       ``(B) Explanation.--The explanation under subparagraph 
     (A)--
       ``(i) shall include a description of actions needed to meet 
     the requirements of a rule, to enable a small entity to know 
     when such requirements are met; and
       ``(ii) if determined appropriate by the agency, may include 
     a description of possible procedures, such as conducting 
     tests, that may assist a small entity in meeting such 
     requirements.
       ``(C) Procedures.--Procedures described under subparagraph 
     (B)(ii)--
       ``(i) shall be suggestions to assist small entities; and
       ``(ii) shall not be additional requirements relating to the 
     rule.
       ``(5) Agency preparation of guides.--The agency shall, in 
     its sole discretion, taking into account the subject matter 
     of the rule and the language of relevant statutes, ensure 
     that the guide is written using sufficiently plain language 
     likely to be understood by affected small entities. Agencies 
     may prepare separate guides covering groups or classes of 
     similarly affected small entities and may cooperate with 
     associations of small entities to develop and distribute such 
     guides. An agency may prepare guides and apply this section 
     with respect to a rule or a group of related rules.
       ``(6) Reporting.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of the Small Business Compliance Assistance 
     Enhancement Act of 2005, and annually thereafter, the head of 
     each agency shall submit a report to the Committee on Small 
     Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the Committee 
     on Small Business of the House of Representatives describing 
     the status of the agency's compliance with paragraphs (1) 
     through (5).''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 211(3) of 
     the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
     1996 (5 U.S.C. 601 note) is amended by inserting ``and 
     entitled'' after ``designated''.
  By Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Jeffords, Ms. Stabenow, 
Mr. DeWine, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Reed, Mr. 
Lautenberg, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Akaka):
  S. 770. A bill to amend the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention 
and Control Act of 1990 to reauthorize and improve that Act; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today my colleague from Maine, Senator 
Collins and I are very pleased to introduce the National Aquatic 
Invasive Species Act of 2005. This bill, which reauthorizes the 
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act, takes a 
comprehensive approach towards addressing aquatic nuisance species to 
protect the nation's aquatic ecosystems. Invasive species are not a new 
problem for this country, but what is so important about this bill is 
that this is the first real effort to take a comprehensive approach 
toward the problem of aquatic invasive species. The bill deals with the 
prevention of introductions, the screening of new aquatic organisms 
that do come into the country, the rapid response to invasions, and the 
research to implement the provisions of this bill.
  During the development of this country, there were more than people 
immigrating to this country. More than 6,500 non-indigenous invasive 
species have been introduced into the United States and have become 
established, self-sustaining populations. These species--from 
microorganisms to mollusks, from pathogens to plants, from insects to 
fish to animals--typically encounter few, if any, natural enemies in 
their new environments and wreak havoc on native species. Aquatic 
nuisance species threaten biodiversity nationwide, especially in the 
Great Lakes.
  In fact, the aquatic nuisance species became a major issue for 
Congress back in the late eighties when the zebra mussel was released 
into the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes still have zebra mussels, and 
now, 20 States are fighting to control them. The Great Lakes region 
spends about $30 million per year to keep water pipes from becoming 
clogged with zebra mussels.
  Zebra mussels were carried over from the Mediterranean to the Great 
Lakes in the ballast tanks of ships. The leading pathway for aquatic 
invasive species was and still is maritime commerce. Most invasive 
species are contained in the water that ships use for

[[Page S3559]]

ballast to maintain trim and stability. Aquatic invaders such as the 
zebra mussel and round goby were introduced into the Great Lakes when 
ships, often from nations, pulled into port and discharged their 
ballast water. In addition to ballast water, aquatic invaders can also 
attach themselves to ships' hulls and anchor chains.
  Because of the impact that the zebra mussel had in the Great Lakes, 
Congress passed legislation in 1990 and 1996 that has reduced, but not 
eliminated, the threat of new invasions by requiring ballast water 
management for ships entering the Great Lakes. Today, there is a 
mandatory ballast water management program in the Great Lakes, and the 
Coast Guard is in the rule-making process to turn the voluntary ballast 
water exchange reporting requirement into a mandatory ballast water 
exchange program for all of our coasts. The current law requires that 
ships entering the Great Lakes must exchange their ballast water, seal 
their ballast tanks or use alternative treatment that is ``as effective 
as ballast water exchange.'' Unfortunately, alternative treatments have 
not been fully developed and widely tested on ships because the 
developers of ballast technology do not know what standard they are 
trying to achieve. This obstacle is serious because ultimately, only 
on-board ballast water treatment will adequately reduce the threat of 
new aquatic nuisance species being introduced through ballast water.
  Our bill addresses this problem. First, this bill establishes a 
deadline for the Coast Guard and EPA to establish a standard for 
ballast water management and requires that the standard reduce the 
number of plankton in the ballast water by 99 percent or the best 
performance that technology can provide. This way, technology vendors 
and the maritime industry know what they should be striving to achieve 
and when they will be expected to achieve it. After 2011, all ships 
that enter any U.S. port after operating outside the Exclusive Economic 
Zone of 200 miles will be required to use a ballast water treatment 
technology that meets this standard.

  I understand that ballast water technologies are being researched, 
and some are currently being tested on-board ships. The range of 
technologies include ultraviolet lights, filters, chemicals, 
deoxygenation, ozone, and several others. Each of these technologies 
has a different price tag attached to it. It is not my intention to 
overburden the maritime industry with an expensive requirement to 
install technology. In fact, the legislation states that the final 
ballast water technology standard must be based on the best performing 
technology that is economically achievable. That means that the Coast 
Guard must consider what technology is available, and if there is no 
economically achievable technology available to a class of vessels, 
then the standard will not require ballast technology for that class of 
vessels, subject to review every three years. I do not believe this 
will be the case, however, because the approach of this bill creates a 
clear incentive for treatment vendors to develop affordable equipment 
for the market.
  Technology will always be evolving, and we hope that affordable 
technology will become available that completely eliminates the risk of 
new introductions. Therefore, it is important that the Coast Guard 
regularly review and revise the standard so that it reflects what the 
best technology currently available is and whether it is economically 
achievable.
  There are other important provisions of the bill that also address 
prevention. For instance, the bill encourages the Coast Guard to 
consult with Canada, Mexico, and other countries in developing 
guidelines to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance 
species. The Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force is also charged with 
conducting a pathway analysis to identify other high risk pathways for 
introduction of nuisance species and implement management strategies to 
reduce those introductions. And this legislation, for the first time, 
establishes a process to screen live organisms entering the country for 
the first time for non-research purposes. Organisms believed to be 
invasive would be imported based on conditions that prevent them from 
becoming a nuisance. Such a screening process might have prevented such 
species as the Snakehead, which has established itself in the Potomac 
River here in the DC area, from being imported.
  The third title of this bill addresses early detection of new 
invasions and the rapid response to invasions as well as the control of 
aquatic nuisance species that do establish themselves. If fully funded, 
this bill will provide a rapid response fund for states to implement 
emergency strategies when outbreaks occur. The bill requires the Army 
Corps of Engineers to construct and operate the Chicago Ship and 
Sanitary Canal project which includes the construction of a second 
dispersal barrier to keep species like the Asian carp from migrating up 
the Mississippi through the Canal into the Great Lakes. Equally 
important, this barrier will prevent the migration of invasive species 
in the Great Lakes from proceeding into the Mississippi system.
  Lastly, the bill authorizes additional research which will identify 
threats and the tools to address those threats.
  Though invasive species threaten the entire Nation's aquatic 
ecosystem, I am particularly concerned with the damage that invasive 
species have done to the Great Lakes. There are now roughly 180 
invasive species in the Great Lakes, and it is estimated that a new 
species is introduced every 8 months. Invasive species cause 
disruptions in the food chain, which is now causing the decline of 
certain fish. Invasive species are believe to be the cause of a new 
dead zone in Lake Erie. And invasive species compete with native 
species for habitat.
  This bill addresses the ``NOBOB'' or No Ballast on Board problem 
which is when ships report having no ballast when they enter the Great 
Lakes. However, a layer of sediment and small bit of water that cannot 
be pumped out is still in the ballast tanks. So when water is taken on 
and then discharged all within the Great Lakes, a new species that was 
still living in that small bit of sediment and water may be introduced. 
By requiring technology to be installed, this bill addresses a very 
serious issue in the Great Lakes.
  All in all, the bill would cost between $160 million and $170 million 
each year. This is a lot of money, but it is a critical investment. As 
those of us from the Great Lakes know, the economic damage that 
invasive species can cause is much greater. However, compared to the 
annual cost of invasive species, the cost of this bill is minimal. 
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and work 
to move the bill swiftly through the Senate.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, from Pickerel Pond to Lake Auburn, from 
Sebago Lake to Bryant Pond, lakes and ponds in Maine are under attack. 
Aquatic invasive species threaten Maine's drinking water systems, 
recreation, wildlife habitat, lakefront real estate, and fisheries. 
Plants, such as Variable Leaf Milfoil, are crowding out native species. 
Invasive Asian shore crabs are taking over Southern New England's tidal 
pools and have advanced well into Maine--to the potential detriment of 
Maine's lobster and clam industries.
  I rise today to join Senator Levin in introducing legislation to 
address this problem. The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2005 
would create the most comprehensive nationwide approach to date for 
combating alien species that invade our shores.
  The stakes are high when invasive species are unintentionally 
introduced into our Nation's waters. They endanger ecosystems, reduce 
biodiversity, and threaten native species. They disrupt people's lives 
and livelihoods by lowering property values, impairing commercial 
fishing and aquaculture, degrading recreational experiences, and 
damaging public water supplies.
  In the 1950s, European Green Crabs swarmed the Maine coast and 
literally ate the bottom out of Maine's soft-shell clam industry by the 
1980s. Many clam diggers were forced to go after other fisheries or 
find new vocations. In just one decade, this invader reduced the number 
of clam diggers in Maine from nearly 5,000 in the 1940s to fewer than 
1500 in the 1950s. European green crabs currently cost an estimated $44 
million a year in damage and control efforts in the United States.
  Past invasions forewarn of the long-term consequences to our 
environment and communities unless we take steps to prevent new 
invasions. It is too late

[[Page S3560]]

to stop European green crabs from taking hold on the East Coast, but we 
still have the opportunity to prevent many other species from taking 
hold in Maine and the United States.
  Senator Levin and I introduced an earlier version of this legislation 
in March of 2003. Just a few months earlier, one of North America's 
most aggressive invasive species hydrilla--was found in Maine for the 
first time. This stubborn and fast-growing aquatic plant had taken hold 
in Pickerel Pond in the Town of Limerick, ME, and threatened 
recreational use for swimmers and boaters. At the time, we warned that 
unless Congress acted, more and more invasive species would establish a 
foothold in Maine and across the country.
  Unfortunately, Congress failed to act on our legislation and new 
invasions have continued. In December, for the first time, the Maine 
Department of Environmental Protection detected Eurasian Milfoil in the 
State. Maine was the last of the lower 48 States to be free of this 
stubborn and fast-growing invasive plant that degrades water quality by 
displacing native plants, fish and other aquatic species. The plant 
forms stems reaching up to 20 feet high that cause fouling problems for 
swimmers and boaters. In total, there are 24 documented cases of 
aquatic invasive species infesting Maine's lakes and ponds.

  When considering the impact of these invasive species, it is 
important to note the tremendous value of our lakes and ponds. While 
their contribution to our quality of life is priceless, their value to 
our economy is more measurable. Maine's Great Ponds generate nearly 13 
million recreational user days each year, lead to more than $1.2 
billion in annual income for Maine residents, and support more than 
50,000 jobs.
  With so much at stake, Mainers are taking action to stop the spread 
of invasive species into our State's waters. The State of Maine has 
made it illegal to sell, posses, cultivate, import or introduce eleven 
invasive aquatic plants. Boaters participating in the Maine Lake and 
River Protection Sticker program are providing needed funding to aid 
efforts to prevent, detect and manage aquatic invasive plants. 
Volunteers are participating in the Courtesy Boat Inspection program to 
keep aquatic invasive plants out of Maine lakes. Before launch or after 
removal, inspectors ask boaters for permission to inspect the boat, 
trailer or other equipment for plants. More than 300 trained inspectors 
conducted upwards of 30,000 courtesy boat inspections at 65 lakes in 
the 2004 boating season.
  While I am proud of the actions that Maine and many other States are 
taking to protect against invasive species, all too often their efforts 
have not been enough. As with national security, protecting the 
integrity of our lakes, streams, and coastlines from invading species 
cannot be accomplished by individual States alone. We need a uniform, 
nationwide approach to deal effectively with invasive species. The 
National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2005 will help my State and 
States throughout the Nation detect, prevent and respond to aquatic 
invasive species.
  The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2005 would be the most 
comprehensive effort ever undertaken to address the threat of invasive 
species. By authorizing $836 million over 6 years, this legislation 
would open numerous new fronts in our war against invasive species. The 
bill directs the Coast Guard to develop regulations that will end the 
easy cruise of invasive species into U.S. waters through the ballast 
water of international ships, and would provide the Coast Guard with $6 
million per year to develop and implement these regulations.
  The bill also would provide $30 million per year for a grant program 
to assist State efforts to prevent the spread of invasive species. It 
would provide $12 million per year for the Army Corps of Engineers and 
Fish and Wildlife Service to contain and control invasive species. 
Finally, the Levin-Collins bill would authorize $30 million annually 
for research, education, and outreach.

  Mr. President, the most effective means of stopping invading species 
is to attack them before they attack us. We need an early alert, rapid 
response system to combat invading species before they have a chance to 
take hold. For the first time, this bill would establish a national 
monitoring network to detect newly introduced species, while providing 
$25 million to the Secretary of the Interior to create a rapid response 
fund to help States and regions respond quickly once invasive species 
have been detected. This bill is our best effort at preventing the next 
wave of invasive species from taking hold and decimating industries and 
destroying waterways in Maine and throughout the country.
  One of the leading pathways for the introduction of aquatic organisms 
to U.S. waters from abroad is through transoceanic vessels. Commercial 
vessels fill and release ballast tanks with seawater as a means of 
stabilization. The ballast water contains live organisms from plankton 
to adult fish that are transported and released through this pathway. 
Last week, a Federal judge ruled that the Government can no longer 
allow ships to dump, without a permit from the Environmental Protection 
Agency, any ballast water containing nonnative species that could harm 
local ecosystems. The court case and subsequent decision indicates that 
there are problems with our existing systems to control ballast water 
discharge and signals a need to address invasive hitchhikers that 
travel to our shores aboard ships. Our legislation would establish a 
framework to prevent the introduction of aquatic invasive species by 
ships.
  The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2005 offers a strong 
framework to combat aquatic invasive species. I call on my colleagues 
to help us enact this legislation in order to protect our waters, 
ecosystems, and industries from destructive invasive species--before 
it's too late.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORZINE:
  S. 773. A bill to ensure the safe and secure transportation by rail 
of extremely hazardous materials; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the 
Extremely Hazardous Materials Rail Transportation Act of 2005, to 
ensure the safety and security of toxic chemicals that are transported 
across our nation's 170,000 mile rail network.
  On January 6, 2005, a freight car carrying toxic chlorine gas 
derailed in South Carolina. The derailment caused a rupture that 
released a deadly gas cloud over the nearby community of Graniteville. 
As a result of this accident, nine people died and 318 needed medical 
attention. Many of those needing medical attention were first 
responders who arrived at the scene of the accident unaware that a tank 
car containing chlorine gas had ruptured. As one responder described 
it, ``I took a breath. That stuff grabbed me. It gagged me and brought 
me down to my knees. I talked to God and said, `I am not dying here.''' 
In the aftermath of the chlorine release, more than 5,000 area 
residents needed to be evacuated from their homes.
  The Graniteville accident was the deadliest accident involving the 
transport of chlorine. But it was not the first. Since the use of rail 
for chlorine transport began in 1924, there had been four fatal 
accidents involving the release of chlorine, according to the Chlorine 
Institute. Thirteen people have died. In addition, the National 
Transportation Safety Board has investigated 14 derailments from 1995 
to 2004 that caused the release of hazardous chemicals, including 
chlorine. In those instances, four people died and 5,517 were injured.
  The Graniteville accident exposes fundamental failings in the 
transport of hazardous materials on America's rail system. These 
failings include pressurized rail tank cars that are vulnerable to 
rupture; lack of sufficient training for transporters and emergency 
responders; lack of sufficient notification to the communities that 
hazardous material train run through and a lack of coordination at the 
federal level between the many agencies that are involved in rail 
transport of hazardous materials.
  Because of these failings, our Nation's freight rail infrastructure 
remains vulnerable to the release of hazardous materials either by 
accident or due to deliberate attack. The ``Extremely Hazardous 
Material Rail Transportation Act addresses these

[[Page S3561]]

safety and security issues. My legislation would require the DHS to 
coordinate Federal, State and local efforts to prevent terrorist acts 
and to respond to emergencies in the transport by rail of extremely 
hazardous materials. It requires the DHS to issue regulations that 
address the integrity of pressurized tank cars, the lack of sufficient 
training for transporters and emergency responders, and the lack of 
sufficient notification for communities. It would also require the DHS 
to study the possibility of reducing, through the use of alternate 
routes, the risks of freight transportation of extremely hazardous 
material; except in the case of emergencies or where such alternatives 
do not exist or are prohibitively expensive. Finally, it contains 
protections for employees who report on the safety and security of 
transportation by rail of extremely hazardous materials.
  I hope my colleagues will support this legislation, 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. 773

       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 ``Extremely Hazardous 
     Materials Rail Transportation Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. COORDINATION OF PRECAUTIONS AND RESPONSE EFFORTS 
                   RELATED TO THE TRANSPORTATION BY RAIL OF 
                   EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.

       (a) Regulations.--
       (1) Requirement for regulations.--Not later than 180 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Secretary 
     of Transportation and the heads of other Federal, State, and 
     local agencies, prescribe regulations for the coordination of 
     efforts of Federal, State, and local agencies aimed at 
     preventing terrorist acts and responding to emergencies that 
     may occur in connection with the transportation by rail of 
     extremely hazardous materials.
       (2) Content.--
       (A) In general.--The regulations required under paragraph 
     (1) shall--
       (i) require, and establish standards for, the training of 
     individuals described in subparagraph (B) on safety 
     precautions and best practices for responding to emergencies 
     occurring in connection with the transportation by rail of 
     extremely hazardous materials, including incidents involving 
     acts of terrorism; and
       (ii) establish a coordinated system for notifying 
     appropriate Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
     authorities (including, if applicable, transit, railroad, or 
     port authority police agencies) and first responders of the 
     transportation by rail of extremely hazardous materials 
     through communities designated as area of concern communities 
     by the Secretary of Homeland Security under subsection 
     (b)(1).
       (B) Individuals covered by training.--The individuals 
     described in subparagraph (A)(i) are first responders, law 
     enforcement personnel, and individuals who transport, load, 
     unload, or are otherwise involved in the transportation by 
     rail of extremely hazardous materials or who are responsible 
     for the repair of related equipment and facilities in the 
     event of an emergency, including an incident involving 
     terrorism.
       (b) Area of Concern Communities.--
       (1) Designation of area of concern communities.--
       (A) In general.--In prescribing regulations under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     compile a list of area of concern communities.
       (B) Criteria.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     include on such list communities through or near which the 
     transportation by rail of extremely hazardous materials poses 
     a serious risk to the public health and safety. In making 
     such determination, the Secretary shall consider--
       (i) the severity of harm that could be caused in a 
     community by the release of the transported extremely 
     hazardous materials;
       (ii) the proximity of a community to major population 
     centers;
       (iii) the threat posed by such transportation to national 
     security, including the safety and security of Federal and 
     State government offices;
       (iv) the vulnerability of a community to acts of terrorism;
       (v) the threat posed by such transportation to critical 
     infrastructure;
       (vi) the threshold quantities of particular extremely 
     hazardous materials that pose a serious threat to the public 
     health and safety; and
       (vii) such other safety or security factors that the 
     Secretary determines appropriate to consider.
       (2) Consideration of alternate routes.--The Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall conduct a study to consider the 
     possibility of reducing, through the use of alternate routes 
     involving lower security risks, the security risks posed by 
     the transportation by rail of extremely hazardous materials 
     through or near communities designated as area of concern 
     communities under paragraph (1), except in the case of 
     emergencies or where such alternatives do not exist or are 
     prohibitively expensive.

     SEC. 3. PRESSURIZED RAILROAD CARS.

       (a) New Safety Standards.--
       (1) Requirement for standards.--Not later than 180 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Secretary 
     of Transportation and the heads of other relevant Federal 
     agencies, prescribe by regulations standards for ensuring the 
     safety and physical integrity of pressurized tank cars that 
     are used in the transportation by rail of extremely hazardous 
     materials.
       (2) Consideration of specific risks.--In prescribing 
     regulations under paragraph (1), the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall consider the risks posed to such pressurized 
     tank cars by acts of terrorism, accidents, severe impacts, 
     and other actions potentially threatening to the structural 
     integrity of the cars or to the safe containment of the 
     materials carried by such cars.
       (b) Report on Impact Resistance.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation 
     and the heads of other relevant Federal agencies, submit to 
     the appropriate congressional committees a report on the 
     safety and physical integrity of pressurized tank cars that 
     are used in the transportation by rail of extremely hazardous 
     materials, including with respect to the risks considered 
     under subsection (a)(2).
       (2) Content.--The report required under paragraph (1) shall 
     include--
       (A) the results of a study on the impact resistance of such 
     pressurized tank cars, including a comparison of the relative 
     impact resistance of tank cars manufactured before and after 
     the implementation by the Administrator of the Federal 
     Railroad Administration in 1989 of Federal standards on the 
     impact resistance of such tank cars; and
       (B) an assessment of whether tank cars manufactured before 
     the implementation of the 1989 impact resistence standards 
     and tank cars manufactured after the implementation of such 
     standards conform with the standards prescribed under 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 4. REPORT ON EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORT 
                   SAFETY.

       (a) Requirement for Report.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Secretary 
     of Transportation, submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees a report on the safety and security of the 
     transportation by rail of extremely hazardous materials, 
     including the threat posed to the security of such 
     transportation by acts of terrorism.
       (b) Content.--The report required under subsection (a) 
     shall include, in a form that does not compromise national 
     security--
       (1) information specifying--
       (A) the Federal and State agencies that are responsible for 
     the oversight of the transportation by rail of extremely 
     hazardous materials; and
       (B) the particular authorities and responsibilities of the 
     heads of each such agency;
       (2) an assessment of the operational risks associated with 
     the transportation by rail of extremely hazardous materials, 
     with consideration given to the safety and security of the 
     railroad infrastructure in the United States, including 
     railroad bridges and rail switching areas;
       (3) an assessment of the vulnerability of railroad cars to 
     acts of terrorism while being used to transport extremely 
     hazardous materials;
       (4) an assessment of the ability of individuals who 
     transport, load, unload, or are otherwise involved in the 
     transportation by rail of extremely hazardous materials or 
     who are responsible for the repair of related equipment and 
     facilities in the event of an emergency, including an 
     incident involving terrorism, to respond to an incident 
     involving terrorism, including an assessment of whether such 
     individuals are adequately trained or prepared to respond to 
     such incidents;
       (5) a description of the study conducted under section 
     2(b)(2), including the conclusions reached by the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security as a result of such study and any 
     recommendations of the Secretary for reducing, through the 
     use of alternate routes involving lower security risks, the 
     security risks posed by the transportation by rail of 
     extremely hazardous materials through or near area of concern 
     communities;
       (6) other recommendations for improving the safety and 
     security of the transportation by rail of extremely hazardous 
     materials; and
       (7) an analysis of the anticipated economic impact and 
     effect on interstate commerce of the regulations prescribed 
     under this Act.
       (c) Form.--The report required under subsection (a) shall 
     be in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex.

     SEC. 5. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION.

       (a) In General.--No person involved in the transportation 
     by rail of extremely hazardous materials may be discharged, 
     demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or in any other 
     manner discriminated against because of any lawful act done 
     by the person--

[[Page S3562]]

       (1) to provide information, cause information to be 
     provided, or otherwise assist in an investigation regarding 
     any conduct which the person reasonably believes constitutes 
     a violation of any law, rule, or regulation related to the 
     security of shipments of extremely hazardous materials, or 
     any other threat to the security of shipments of extremely 
     hazardous materials, when the information or assistance is 
     provided to or the investigation is conducted by--
       (A) a Federal regulatory or law enforcement agency;
       (B) any Member of Congress or any committee of Congress; or
       (C) a person with supervisory authority over the person (or 
     such other person who has the authority to investigate, 
     discover, or terminate misconduct);
       (2) to file, cause to be filed, testify, participate in, or 
     otherwise assist in a proceeding or action filed or about to 
     be filed relating to a violation of any law, rule, or 
     regulation related to the security of shipments of extremely 
     hazardous materials or any other threat to the security of 
     shipments of extremely hazardous materials; or
       (3) to refuse to violate or assist in the violation of any 
     law, rule, or regulation related to the security of shipments 
     of extremely hazardous materials.
       (b) Enforcement Action.--
       (1) In general.--A person who alleges discharge or other 
     discrimination by any person in violation of subsection (a) 
     may seek relief under subsection (c)--
       (A) by filing a complaint with the Secretary of Labor; and
       (B) if the Secretary has not issued a final decision within 
     180 days after the filing of the complaint and there is no 
     showing that such delay is due to the bad faith of the 
     claimant, by commencing a civil action in the appropriate 
     district court of the United States, which shall have 
     jurisdiction over such an action without regard to the amount 
     in controversy.
       (2) Procedure.--
       (A) Complaint to department of labor.--An action under 
     paragraph (1)(A) shall be governed under the rules and 
     procedures set forth in subsection (b) of section 42121 of 
     title 49, United States Code, except that notification made 
     under such subsection shall be made to the person named in 
     the complaint and to the person's employer.
       (B) Court action.--An action commenced under paragraph 
     (1)(B) shall be governed by the legal burdens of proof set 
     forth in section 42121(b)(2)(B) of title 49, United States 
     Code.
       (C) Statute of limitations.--An action under paragraph (1) 
     shall be commenced not later than 180 days after the date on 
     which the violation occurs.
       (c) Remedies.--
       (1) In general.--A person prevailing in any action under 
     subsection (b)(1) shall be entitled to all relief necessary 
     to make the person whole.
       (2) Compensatory damages.--Relief for any action under 
     paragraph (1) shall include--
       (A) in the case of a termination of, or other 
     discriminatory act regarding the person's employment--
       (i) reinstatement with the same seniority status that the 
     person would have had, but for the discrimination; and
       (ii) payment of the amount of any back pay, with interest, 
     computed retroactively to the date of the discriminatory act; 
     and
       (B) compensation for any special damages sustained as a 
     result of the discrimination, including litigation costs, 
     expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees.
       (d) Rights Retained by Person.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be deemed to diminish the rights, privileges, or 
     remedies of any person under any Federal or State law, or 
     under any collective bargaining agreement.

     SEC. 6. CIVIL PENALTIES.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall prescribe 
     regulations providing for the imposition of civil penalties 
     for violations of--
       (1) regulations prescribed under this Act; and
       (2) the prohibition against discriminatory treatment under 
     section 5(a).

     SEC. 7. NO FEDERAL PREEMPTION.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preempting any 
     State law, except that no such law may relieve any person of 
     a requirement otherwise applicable under this Act.

     SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Extremely hazardous material.--The term ``extremely 
     hazardous material'' means--
       (A) a material that is toxic by inhalation;
       (B) a material that is extremely flammable;
       (C) a material that is highly explosive;
       (D) high-level radioactive waste; and
       (E) any other material designated by the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security as being extremely hazardous.
       (2) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means--
       (A) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate; and
       (B) the Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BUNNING:
  S. 774. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 
the 1993 income tax increase on Social Security benefits; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Social 
Security Benefits Tax Relief Act of 2005, which repeals the 1993 income 
tax increase on Social Security benefits that went into effect in 1993.
  When Social Security was created, beneficiaries did not pay federal 
income tax on their benefits. However, in 1983, Congress passed 
legislation requiring that 50 percent of Social Security benefits be 
taxed for seniors whose incomes were above $25,000 for an individual 
and $32,000 for a couple. This additional revenue was credited back to 
the Social Security trust funds.
  In 1993, Congress and President Clinton expanded this tax. A 
provision was passed as part of a larger bill requiring that 85 percent 
of a senior's Social Security benefit be taxed if their income was 
above $34,000 for an individual and $44,000 for a couple. This 
additional money is credited to the Medicare program.
  I was in Congress in 1993, and fought against this provision. This is 
an unfair tax on our senior citizens who worked year after year paying 
into Social Security, only to be taxed on their benefits once they 
retired.
  My bill, the Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act, would repeal 
the 1993 tax increase on benefits and would replace the money that has 
been going to the Medicare program with general funds. This legislation 
is identical to the legislation I introduced in the 108th Congress.
  Recently during debate on the Budget Resolution, I introduced an 
amendment that provides the Finance Committee with the tax cuts to 
finally repeal the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits. My 
amendment passed by a vote of 55 yeas to 45 nays. The legislation I am 
introducing today provides the legislative blueprint for repealing this 
unfair tax.
  The 1993 tax was unfair when it was signed into law, and it is unfair 
today. I hope my Senate colleagues can support this legislation to 
remove this burdensome tax on our seniors.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INHOFE (for himself and Mr. Coburn):
  S. 775. A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal 
Service located at 123 W. 7th Street in Holdenville, OK, as the ``Boone 
Pickens Post Office''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to proudly introduce 
legislation to designate the facility of the United States Postal 
Service located at 123 W. 7th Street in Holdenville, OK, as the ``Boone 
Pickens Post Office''.
  Thomas Boone Pickens, Jr. emulates the Oklahoma spirit of hard work, 
entrepreneurship and philanthropy. He is an excellent example of the 
potential to achieve success in our American free enterprise system. I 
honor, I proudly seek to name the post office in his hometown of 
Holdenville, OK, where he was born in 1928.
  As the son of a landman, Pickens quickly appreciated the business 
potential of oil exploration. Oklahoma State University awarded Pickens 
a bachelor of science in geology in 1951. He grew frustrated with the 
bureaucracy of working for a large company and decided to start his own 
in 1956. This company was the basis for what became one of the leading 
oil and gas exploration and production firms in the nation, Mesa 
Petroleum Company.
  Not only did Pickens lead in the energy industry itself, he possessed 
the unique ability to recognize and acquire undervalued companies. 
Repeatedly, markets eventually realized the worth of these companies, 
and shareholder profits soared.
  His innovative thinking and business skills amassed the fortune and 
wisdom he unselfishly shares with others. Oklahoma State University has 
benefited from his generous investment in academics and athletics. He 
is also a dedicated supporter of a wide range of medical research 
initiatives. He is an energetic advocate for the causes he believes in, 
devoting his time to serve on numerous boards and receiving recognition 
through countless awards.
  He often said, ``Be willing to make decisions. That's the most 
important quality in a good leader. Don't fall victim to what I call 
the ready-aim-aim-aim-aim syndrome.

[[Page S3563]]

  You must be willing to fire.'' That is exactly the Oklahoma mentality 
of leadership, the ability to make tough decisions and stick to them.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation 
as we commemorate an outstanding citizen so that future generations 
will be challenged by his example, just as we have been.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself, Mr. Thune, Mr. Dayton, Mr. 
        Lautenberg, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Rockefeller):
  S. 776. A bill to designate certain functions performed at flight 
service stations of the Federal Aviation Administration as inherently 
governmental functions, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
ensure that rural America's aviation network benefits from the same 
level of service and safety as America's busiest airports. Whether 
moving products and services as part of the global economy, or 
shepherding sick patients for medical care, rural communities require 
the same basic air infrastructure network. By ensuring that Flight 
Service Stations remain in rural areas, general aviation pilots will 
continue to be able to serve regions that may otherwise be neglected.
  Flight Service Stations currently provide general aviation pilots 
with weather briefings, temporary flight restrictions, emergency 
information, and aid in search and rescue situations. Flight Service 
Station Specialists use their expertise of regional weather, landscape, 
and flight conditions to ensure pilots reach their destinations safely. 
Their work has kept general aviation running smoothly and has literally 
saved lives.
  On February 1, 2005, the Federal Aviation Administration announced 
that operations conducted by Flight Service Stations would be performed 
by a private contractor. Under the Administration's proposal, the 
contractor will eliminate 38 of the 58 stations across the country. 
Work currently conducted by these stations will then be done by 
employees located in the remaining 20 stations.
  The Federal Aviation Administration's proposal will lead to decreased 
safety for pilots of small planes because they will no longer be 
talking to personnel familiar with regional weather and topography. The 
consolidated system will strain service capability because fewer 
employees will be responsible for a growing system of general air 
traffic. The proposed plan will be especially harmful to rural areas 
that more heavily rely upon smaller aircraft.
  The Federal Aviation Safety Security Act would ensure that these 
facilities can continue to preserve and protect general aviation in the 
United States. This legislation is supported by a large number of 
general aviation pilots and others who depend on their regional Flight 
Service Station. The bill already enjoys significant bipartisan 
support, and I will continue to work with members of both parties to 
preserve aviation safety.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Federal Aviation Safety 
Security Act be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 776

       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 ``The Federal Aviation Safety 
     Security Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. INHERENTLY GOVERNMENTAL DETERMINATION.

       For purposes of section 2(a) of the Federal Inventory 
     Activities Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2382), the functions 
     performed by air traffic control specialists at flight 
     service stations operated by the Federal Aviation 
     Administration are inherently governmental functions and must 
     be performed by Federal employees.

     SEC. 3. ACTIONS VOIDED.

       Any action taken pursuant to section 2(a) of the Federal 
     Inventory Activities Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2382), or any 
     other law or legal authority with respect to functions 
     performed by air traffic control specialists at flight 
     service stations operated by the Federal Aviation 
     Administration is null and void.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SARBANES:
  S. 777. A bill to designate Catoctin Mountain Park in the State of 
Maryland as the ``Catoctin Mountain National Recreation Area'', and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to 
re-designate Catoctin Mountain Park as the Catoctin Mountain National 
Recreation Area. This measure was unanimously approved by the full 
Senate during the 108th Congress, but unfortunately, was not considered 
in the House.
  I spoke during the 108th Congress about the need to enact this 
legislation and I want to underscore some of the key reasons today. 
Catoctin Mountain Park is a hidden gem in our National Park System. 
Home to Camp David, the Presidential retreat, it has been aptly 
described as ``America's most famous unknown park.'' Comprising nearly 
6000 acres of the eastern reach of the Appalachian Mountains in 
Maryland, the park is rich in history as well as outdoor recreation 
opportunities. Visitors can enjoy camping, picnicking, cross-country 
skiing, fishing, as well as the solitude and beauty of the woodland 
mountain and streams in the park.
  Catoctin Mountain Park had its origins during the Great Depression as 
one of 46 Recreational Demonstration Areas (RDA) established under the 
authority of the National Industrial Recovery Act. The Federal 
Government purchased more than 10,000 acres of mountain land that had 
been heavily logged and was no longer productive to demonstrate how 
sub-marginal land could be turned into a productive recreational area 
and help put people back to work. From 1936 through 1941, hundreds of 
workers under the Works Progress Administration and later the Civilian 
Conservation Corps were employed in reforestation activities and in the 
construction of a number of camps, roads and other facilities, 
including the camp now known as Camp David, and one of the earliest--if 
not the oldest--camp for disabled individuals. In November 1936, 
administrative authority for the Catoctin RDA was transferred to the 
National Park Service by Executive Order.
  In 1942, concern about President Roosevelt's health and safety led to 
the selection of Catoctin Mountain, and specifically Camp Hi-Catoctin 
as the location for the President's new retreat. Subsequently 
approximately 5,000 acres of the area was transferred to the State of 
Maryland, becoming Cunningham Falls State Park in 1954. The remaining 
5,770 acres of the Catoctin Recreation Demonstration Area was renamed 
Catoctin Mountain Park by the Director of the National Park Service in 
1954. Unfortunately, the Director failed to include the term 
``National'' in the title and the park today remains one of eleven 
units in the National Park System--all in the National Capital Region--
that do not have this designation.
  The proximity of Catoctin Mountain Park, Camp David, and Cunningham 
Falls State Park, and the differences between national and state park 
management, has caused longstanding confusion for visitors to the area. 
Catoctin Mountain Park is continually misidentified by the public as 
containing lake and beach areas associated with Cunningham Falls State 
Park, being operated by the State of Maryland, or being closed to the 
public because of the presence of Camp David. National Park employees 
spend countless hours explaining, assisting and redirecting visitors to 
their desired destinations.
  My legislation would help to address this situation and clearly 
identify this park as a unit of the National Park System by renaming it 
the Catoctin Mountain National Recreation Area. The Maryland State 
Highway Administration, perhaps in anticipation of the enactment of 
this bill, has already changed some of the signs leading to the Park. 
This bill would make the name change official within the National Park 
Service and on official National Park Service maps. Moreover, the 
mission and characteristics of this park--which include the 
preservation of significant historic resources and important natural 
areas in locations that provide outdoor recreation for large numbers of 
people--make this designation appropriate. This measure would not 
change access requirements

[[Page S3564]]

or current recreational uses occurring within the park. But it would 
assist the visiting public in distinguishing between the many units of 
the State and Federal systems. It will also, in my judgment, help 
promote tourism by enhancing public awareness of the National Park 
unit.
  I urge approval of this legislation and ask unanimous consent that 
the full text of the legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 777

       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 ``Catoctin Mountain National 
     Recreation Area Designation Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Catoctin Recreation Demonstration Area, in 
     Frederick County, Maryland--
       (A) was established in 1933; and
       (B) was transferred to the National Park Service by 
     executive order in 1936;
       (2) in 1942, the presidential retreat known as ``Camp 
     David'' was established in the Catoctin Recreation 
     Demonstration Area;
       (3) in 1952, approximately 5,000 acres of land in the 
     Catoctin Recreation Demonstration Area was transferred to the 
     State of Maryland and designated as Cunningham Falls State 
     Park;
       (4) in 1954, the Catoctin Recreation Demonstration Area was 
     renamed ``Catoctin Mountain Park'';
       (5) the proximity of Catoctin Mountain Park, Camp David, 
     and Cunningham Falls State Park and the difference between 
     management of the parks by the Federal and State government 
     has caused longstanding confusion to visitors to the parks;
       (6) Catoctin Mountain Park is 1 of 17 units in the National 
     Park System and 1 of 9 units in the National Capital Region 
     that does not have the word ``National'' in the title; and
       (7) the history, uses, and resources of Catoctin Mountain 
     Park make the park appropriate for designation as a national 
     recreation area.
       (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to designate 
     Catoctin Mountain Park as a national recreation area to--
       (1) clearly identify the park as a unit of the National 
     Park System; and
       (2) distinguish the park from Cunningham Falls State Park.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled 
     ``Catoctin Mountain National Recreation Area'', numbered 841/
     80444, and dated August 14, 2002.
       (b) Recreation Area.--The term ``recreation area'' means 
     the Catoctin Mountain National Recreation Area designated by 
     section 4(a).
       (c) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 4. CATOCTIN MOUNTAIN NATIONAL RECREATION AREA.

       (a) Designation.--Catoctin Mountain Park in the State of 
     Maryland shall be known and designated as the ``Catoctin 
     Mountain National Recreation Area''.
       (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to 
     Catoctin Mountain Park shall be deemed to be a reference to 
     the Catoctin Mountain National Recreation Area.
       (c) Boundary.--
       (1) In general.--The recreation area shall consist of land 
     within the boundary depicted on the map.
       (2) Availability of map.--The map shall be on file and 
     available for public inspection in the appropriate offices of 
     the National Park Service.
       (3) Adjustments.--The Secretary may make minor adjustments 
     in the boundary of the recreation area consistent with 
     section 7(c) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 
     1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-9(c)).
       (d) Acquisition Authority.--The Secretary may acquire any 
     land, interest in land, or improvement to land within the 
     boundary of the recreation area by donation, purchase with 
     donated or appropriated funds, or exchange.
       (e) Administration.--The Secretary shall administer the 
     recreation area--
       (1) in accordance with this Act and the laws generally 
     applicable to units of the National Park System, including--
       (A) the Act of August 25, 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.); and
       (B) the Act of August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.); and
       (2) in a manner that protects and enhances the scenic, 
     natural, cultural, historical, and recreational resources of 
     the recreation area.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 778. A bill to amend title XVIII and XIX of the Social Security 
Act to require a pharmacy that receives payments or has contracts under 
the medicare and medicaid programs to ensure that all valid 
prescriptions are filled without unnecessary delay or interference; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing ``The Pharmacy 
Consumer Protection Act of 2005'' to ensure that our Nation's 
pharmacies fill all valid prescriptions without unnecessary delay or 
interference.
  We are hearing more and more stories about pharmacists refusing to 
fill prescriptions for contraceptives because of their personal 
beliefs, not their medical concerns. Some of my constituents have told 
me about their experiences. One woman in Merced County was turned away 
by a pharmacist who said ``we don't do that here,'' but, less than two 
hours later, another pharmacist in the store filled the same 
prescription for another customer immediately. It's not just in 
California, of course.
  In Menomonie, WI, a pharmacist told a woman he wouldn't fill her 
prescription for birth control pills or even transfer her prescription 
to another pharmacy. In Fabens, TX, a married woman had just had a 
baby. It had been a C-section. Her doctor told her not to get pregnant 
again in the near future, and prescribed birth control pills. She went 
to get her prescription refilled while visiting her mother in Fabens. 
Unfortunately, the cashier told her that the pharmacist wouldn't be 
able to refill her prescription because birth control was ``against his 
religion'' and was a form of ``abortion.''
  The American people do not think this is right. According to a 
November 2004 CBS/New York Times poll, 8 out of 10 Americans believe 
that pharmacists should not be permitted to refuse to dispense birth 
control pills, including 70 percent of Republicans. They know that 
contraceptives are a legal and effective way to reduce unintended 
pregnancies and abortions.
  But this challenge is not just about contraceptives. It's about 
access to health care. It's about making decisions based on science and 
medicine. Tomorrow, pharmacists could refuse to dispense any drug for 
any medical condition. Access to pharmaceuticals should depend on 
medical judgments, not personal ideology.
  The Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act requires pharmacies that receive 
Medicare and Medicaid funding to fill all valid prescriptions for FDA-
approved drugs and devices without unnecessary delay or interference. 
That means, if the item is not in stock, the pharmacy should order it 
according to its standard procedures, or, if the customer prefers, 
transfer it to another pharmacy or give the prescription back.
  There are medical reasons why a pharmacy wouldn't want to fill 
prescriptions including problems with dosages, harmful interactions 
with other drugs, or potential drug abuse. This bill would not 
interfere with those decisions.
  I know some are concerned about those pharmacists who do not want to 
dispense particular medications because of their personal beliefs, 
including their religious values. I believe that is between the 
pharmacist and his or her employer. In this bill, it is the 
responsibility of the pharmacy, not the pharmacist, to ensure that 
prescriptions are filled. Pharmacies can accommodate their employees in 
any manner that they wish as long as customers get their medications 
without delay, interference, or harassment.
  Most of our pharmacies receive reimbursements through Medicaid. When 
the prescription drug program goes into full effect in January, a 
growing number will be part of Medicare. If a pharmacy contracts with 
our Medicaid or Medicare programs, directly or indirectly, they should 
fulfill their fundamental duty to the patients they serve.
  Most pharmacists work hard and do right by their patients every day. 
They believe in science. They believe that if a doctor writes a valid 
prescription, it should be filled. But, unfortunately, some have put 
their personal views over the health of their patients. That is wrong. 
When people walk into a pharmacy, they should have confidence that they 
will get the medications they need, when they need them. The Pharmacy 
Consumer Protection Act of 2005 will help ensure just that.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mr. Levin):
  S. 779. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat 
controlled foreign corporations established

[[Page S3565]]

in tax havens as domestic corporations; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I'm joined by Senator Levin of 
Michigan in introducing legislation that we believe will help the 
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) combat offshore tax-haven abuses and 
ensure that U.S. multinational companies pay the U.S. taxes that they 
rightfully owe.
  Tens of millions of taxpayers will be rushing to file their tax 
returns in the next few days in order to fulfill their taxpaying 
responsibility by the April 15 filing deadline. Some tax experts 
estimate that taxpayers will spend over $100 billion and more than 6 
billion hours this year trying to comply with their federal tax 
obligation. It's no wonder that many Americans are frustrated with the 
current tax system and would gladly welcome substantive efforts to 
simplify it.
  However, this frustration changes to anger when the taxpayers who pay 
their taxes on time each year discover that many corporate taxpayers 
are shirking their tax obligations by actively shifting their profits 
to foreign tax havens or using other inappropriate tax avoidance 
techniques. The bill that Senator Levin and I are introducing today is 
a simple and straightforward way to try to tackle the offshore tax-
haven problem.
  Specifically, our legislation denies tax benefits, namely tax 
deferral, to U.S. multinational companies that set up controlled 
foreign corporations in tax-haven countries by treating those 
subsidiaries as domestic companies for U.S. income tax purposes. This 
tracks the same general approach embraced and passed by the Congress in 
other tax legislation designed to curb the problem of corporate 
inversions.
  We have known for many years that some very profitable U.S. 
multinational businesses are using offshore tax havens to avoid paying 
their fair share of U.S. taxes. But Congress has really done very 
little to stop this hemorrhaging of tax revenues. In fact, recent 
evidence suggests that the tax-haven problem is getting much worse and 
may be draining the U.S. Treasury of tens of billions of dollars every 
year.
  The New York Times got it right when it suggested that ``instead of 
moving headquarters offshore, many companies are simply placing patents 
on drugs, ownership of corporate logos, techniques for manufacturing 
processes and other intangible assets in tax havens . . . The companies 
then charge their subsidiaries in higher-tax locales, including the 
U.S., for the use of these intellectual properties. This allows the 
companies to take profits in these havens and pay far less in taxes.''
  How pervasive is the tax-haven subsidiary problem? Last year, the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigative arm of 
Congress, issued a report that Senator Levin and I requested that gives 
some insight to the potential magnitude of this tax avoidance activity. 
The GAO found that 59 out of the 100 largest publicly-traded federal 
contractors in 2001--with tens of billions of dollars of federal 
contracts in 2001--had established hundreds of subsidiaries located in 
offshore tax havens.

  According to the GAO, Exxon-Mobil Corporation, the 21st largest 
publicly traded federal contractor in 2001, has some 11 tax-haven 
subsidiaries in the Bahamas. Halliburton Company reportedly has 17 tax-
haven subsidiaries, including 13 in the Cayman Islands, a country that 
has never imposed a corporate income tax, as well as 2 in Liechtenstein 
and 2 in Panama. And the now infamous Enron Corporation had 1,300 
different foreign entities, including some 441 located in the Cayman 
Islands.
  More recently, former Joint Committee on Taxation economist Martin 
Sullivan released a study that looked at the amount of profits that US. 
companies are shifting to offshore tax havens. He found that U.S. 
multinationals had moved hundreds of billions of profits to tax havens 
for years 1999-2002, the latest years for which IRS data is available.
  Although Congress passed legislation, which I supported, that 
addresses the problem of corporate expatriates that reincorporate 
overseas, that legislation did nothing to deal with the problem of U.S. 
companies that are setting up tax-haven subsidiaries to avoid their 
taxpaying responsibilities in this country.
  The legislation that we are introducing builds upon the good work of 
Senators Grassley and Baucus and other members of the Senate Finance 
Committee by extending similar tax policy changes to cover the case of 
U.S. companies and their tax-haven subsidiaries.
  Specifically, our legislation would do the following: 1. Treat U.S. 
controlled foreign subsidiaries that are set up in tax-haven countries 
as domestic companies for U.S. tax purposes. In other words, we would 
simply treat these companies as if they never left the United States, 
which is essentially the case in these tax avoidance motivated 
transactions.
  2. List specific tax-haven countries subject to the new rule (based 
upon the previous work by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
Development) and give the Secretary of the Treasury the ability to add 
or remove a foreign country from this list in appropriate cases.
  3. Provide an exception where substantially all of a U.S. controlled 
foreign corporation's income is derived from the active conduct of a 
trade or business within the listed tax-haven country.
  4. Make these proposed changes effective beginning after December 31, 
2007. This will give businesses ample time to restructure their tax-
haven operations if they so choose.
  This legislation will help end the tax benefits for U.S. companies 
that shift income to offshore tax-haven subsidiaries. For example, any 
efforts by a U.S. company to move profits to the subsidiary through 
transfer pricing schemes will not work because the income earned by the 
subsidiary would still be immediately taxable by the United States. 
Likewise, any efforts to move otherwise active income earned by a U.S. 
company in a high-tax foreign country to a tax haven would cause the 
income to be immediately taxable by the United States. Companies that 
try to move intangible assets--and the income they produce--to tax 
havens would be unsuccessful because the income would still be 
immediately taxable by the United States.
  Let me be very clear about one thing. This legislation will not 
adversely impact U.S. companies with controlled foreign subsidiaries 
that are located in tax havens and doing legitimate and substantial 
business. The legislation expressly exempts a U.S.-controlled foreign 
subsidiary from its tax rule changes when substantially all of its 
income is derived from the active conduct of a trade or business within 
a listed tax-haven country.
  In 2002, then-IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti told Congress that 
``nothing undermines confidence in the tax system more than the 
impression that the average honest taxpayer has to pay his or her taxes 
while more wealthy or unscrupulous taxpayers are allowed to get away 
with not paying.'' Last week, IRS Commissioner Everson echoed similar 
sentiments at a Senate Transportation-Treasury Appropriations 
Subcommittee hearing I attended on the IRS's FY 2006 budget request.
  They are absolutely right. It's grossly unfair to ask our Main Street 
businesses to operate at a competitive disadvantage to large 
multinational businesses simply because our tax authorities are unable 
to grapple with the growing offshore tax avoidance problem. It is 
outrageous that tens of millions of working families who pay their 
taxes on time every year are shouldering the tax burden of large 
profitable U.S. multinational companies that use tax-haven 
subsidiaries.
  I hope that Congress will act promptly to enact legislation to curb 
these tax-haven subsidiary abuses. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor 
this bill.

                          ____________________