[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.
____________________