[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 49 (Thursday, April 21, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4110-S4135]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. HUTCHISON:
  S. 866. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal 
the windfall elimination provision and protect the retirement of public 
servants; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text 
of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 866

       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 ``Public Servant Retirement 
     Protection Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. REPEAL OF CURRENT WINDFALL ELIMINATION PROVISION.

       Paragraph (7) of section 215(a) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 415(a)(7)) is repealed.

     SEC. 3. REPLACEMENT OF THE WINDFALL ELIMINATION PROVISION 
                   WITH A FORMULA EQUALIZING BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN 
                   INDIVIDUALS WITH NON-COVERED EMPLOYMENT.

       (a) Substitution of Proportional Formula for Formula Based 
     on Covered Portion of Periodic Benefit.--
       (1) In general.--Section 215(a) of the Social Security Act 
     (as amended by section 2 of this Act) is amended further by 
     inserting after paragraph (6) the following new paragraph:
       ``(7)(A) In the case of an individual whose primary 
     insurance amount would be computed under paragraph (1) of 
     this subsection, who--
       ``(i) attains age 62 after 1985 (except where he or she 
     became entitled to a disability insurance benefit before 1986 
     and remained so entitled in any of the 12 months immediately 
     preceding his or her attainment of age 62), or
       ``(ii) would attain age 62 after 1985 and becomes eligible 
     for a disability insurance benefit after 1985,

     and who first becomes eligible after 1985 for a monthly 
     periodic payment (including a

[[Page S4111]]

     payment determined under subparagraph (E), but excluding (I) 
     a payment under the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 or 1937, 
     (II) a payment by a social security system of a foreign 
     country based on an agreement concluded between the United 
     States and such foreign country pursuant to section 233, and 
     (III) a payment based wholly on service as a member of a 
     uniformed service (as defined in section 210(m)) which is 
     based in whole or in part upon his or her earnings for 
     service which did not constitute `employment' as defined in 
     section 210 for purposes of this title (hereafter in this 
     paragraph and in subsection (d)(3) referred to as `noncovered 
     service'), the primary insurance amount of that individual 
     during his or her concurrent entitlement to such monthly 
     periodic payment and to old-age or disability insurance 
     benefits shall be computed or recomputed under this 
     paragraph.
       ``(B) The primary insurance amount of an individual 
     described in subparagraph (A), as computed or recomputed 
     under this paragraph, shall be--
       ``(i) in the case of an individual who first performs 
     noncovered service after the 12th calendar month following 
     the date of the enactment of the Public Servant Retirement 
     Protection Act of 2005, the primary insurance amount 
     determined under subparagraph (C), or
       ``(ii) in the case of an individual who has performed 
     noncovered service during or before the 12th calendar month 
     following the date of the enactment of the Public Servant 
     Retirement Protection Act of 2005, the larger of--
       ``(I) the primary insurance amount determined under 
     subparagraph (C), or
       ``(II) the primary insurance amount determined under 
     subparagraph (E).
       ``(C) An individual's primary insurance amount determined 
     under this subparagraph shall be the product derived by 
     multiplying--
       ``(i) the individual's primary insurance amount, as 
     determined under paragraph (1) of this subsection and 
     subparagraph (D)(i) of this paragraph, by
       ``(ii) a fraction--
       ``(I) the numerator of which is the individual's average 
     indexed monthly earnings (determined without regard to 
     subparagraph (D)(i)), and
       ``(II) the denominator of which is an amount equal to the 
     individual's average indexed monthly earnings (as determined 
     under subparagraph (D)(i)),

     rounded, if not a multiple of $0.10, to the next lower 
     multiple of $0.10.
       ``(D)(i) For purposes of determining an individual's 
     primary insurance amount pursuant to subparagraph (C)(i), the 
     individual's average indexed monthly earnings shall be 
     determined by treating all service performed after 1950 on 
     which the individual's monthly periodic payment referred to 
     in subparagraph (A) is based (other than noncovered service 
     as a member of a uniformed service (as defined in section 
     210(m))) as `employment' as defined in section 210 for 
     purposes of this title (together with all other service 
     performed by such individual consisting of `employment' as so 
     defined).
       ``(ii) For purposes of determining average indexed monthly 
     earnings as described in clause (i), the Commissioner of 
     Social Security shall provide by regulation for a method for 
     determining the amount of wages derived from service 
     performed after 1950 on which the individual's periodic 
     benefit is based and which is to be treated as `employment' 
     solely for purposes of clause (i). Such method shall provide 
     for reliance on employment records which are provided to the 
     Commissioner and which, as determined by the Commissioner, 
     constitute a reasonable basis for treatment of service as 
     `employment' for such purposes, together with such other 
     information received by the Commissioner (including such 
     documentary evidence of earnings derived from noncovered 
     service as may be provided to the Commissioner by the 
     individual) as the Commissioner may consider appropriate as a 
     reasonable basis for treatment of service as `employment' for 
     such purposes. The Commissioner shall enter into such 
     arrangements as are necessary and appropriate with the 
     Department of the Treasury, the Department of Labor, other 
     Federal agencies, and agencies of States and political 
     subdivisions thereof so as to secure satisfactory evidence of 
     earnings for noncovered service described in subparagraph (A) 
     for purposes of this clause and clauses (iii) and (iv). The 
     Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Labor, and the 
     heads of all other Federal agencies are authorized and 
     directed to cooperate with the Commissioner and, to the 
     extent permitted by law, to provide such employment records 
     and other information as the Commissioner may request for 
     their assistance in the performance of the Commissioner's 
     functions under this clause and clauses (iii) and (iv).
       ``(iii) In any case in which satisfactory evidence of 
     earnings for noncovered service which was performed by an 
     individual during any year or portion of a year after 1977 is 
     not otherwise available, the Commissioner may, for purposes 
     of clause (ii), accept as satisfactory evidence of such 
     individual's earnings for such noncovered service during such 
     year or portion of a year reasonable extrapolations from 
     available information with respect to earnings for noncovered 
     service of such individual for periods immediately preceding 
     and following such year or portion of a year.
       ``(iv) In any case in which satisfactory evidence of 
     earnings for noncovered service which was performed by an 
     individual during any period before 1978 is not otherwise 
     available, the Commissioner may, for purposes of clause (ii), 
     accept as satisfactory evidence of such individual's earnings 
     for such noncovered service during such period --
       ``(I) the individual's written attestation of such 
     earnings, if such attestation is corroborated by at least 1 
     other individual who is knowledgeable of the relevant facts, 
     or
       ``(II) available information regarding the average earnings 
     for noncovered service for the same period for individuals in 
     similar positions in the same profession in the same State or 
     political subdivision thereof, or, in any case in which such 
     information is not available for such period, reasonable 
     extrapolations of average earnings for noncovered service for 
     such individuals from periods immediately preceding and 
     following such period.
       ``(v) In any case described in subparagraph (B)(i), if the 
     requirements of clause (ii) of this subparagraph are not met 
     (after applying clauses (iii) and (iv)), the primary 
     insurance amount of the individual shall be, notwithstanding 
     subparagraph (B)(i), the primary insurance amount computed 
     under subparagraph (E).
       ``(E)(i) For purposes of determining the primary insurance 
     amount under this subparagraph--
       ``(I) there shall first be computed an amount equal to the 
     individual's primary insurance amount under paragraph (1) of 
     this subsection, except that for purposes of such computation 
     the percentage of the individual's average indexed monthly 
     earnings established by subparagraph (A)(i) of paragraph (1) 
     shall be the percent specified in clause (ii), and
       ``(II) there shall then be computed (without regard to this 
     paragraph) a second amount, which shall be equal to the 
     individual's primary insurance amount under paragraph (1) of 
     this subsection, except that such second amount shall be 
     reduced by an amount equal to one-half of the portion of the 
     monthly periodic payment which is attributable to noncovered 
     service performed after 1956 (with such attribution being 
     based on the proportionate number of years of such noncovered 
     service) and to which the individual is entitled (or is 
     deemed to be entitled) for the initial month of his or her 
     concurrent entitlement to such monthly periodic payment and 
     old-age or disability insurance benefits.

     An individual's primary insurance amount determined under 
     this subparagraph shall be the larger of the two amounts 
     computed under this clause (before the application of 
     subsection (i)).
       ``(ii) For purposes of clause (i), the percent specified in 
     this clause is--
       ``(I) 80.0 percent with respect to individuals who become 
     eligible (as defined in paragraph (3)(B)) for old-age 
     insurance benefits (or became eligible as so defined for 
     disability insurance benefits before attaining age 62) in 
     1986;
       ``(II) 70.0 percent with respect to individuals who so 
     become eligible in 1987;
       ``(III) 60.0 percent with respect to individuals who so 
     become eligible in 1988;
       ``(IV) 50.0 percent with respect to individuals who so 
     become eligible in 1989; and
       ``(V) 40.0 percent with respect to individuals who so 
     become eligible in 1990 or thereafter.
       ``(F)(i) Any periodic payment which otherwise meets the 
     requirements of subparagraph (A), but which is paid on other 
     than a monthly basis, shall be allocated on a basis 
     equivalent to a monthly payment (as determined by the 
     Commissioner of Social Security), and such equivalent monthly 
     payment shall constitute a monthly periodic payment for 
     purposes of this paragraph.
       ``(ii) In the case of an individual who has elected to 
     receive a periodic payment that has been reduced so as to 
     provide a survivor's benefit to any other individual, the 
     payment shall be deemed to be increased (for purposes of any 
     computation under this paragraph or subsection (d)(3)) by the 
     amount of such reduction.
       ``(iii) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `periodic 
     payment' includes a payment payable in a lump sum if it is a 
     commutation of, or a substitute for, periodic payments.
       ``(G)(i) This paragraph shall not apply in the case of an 
     individual who has 30 years or more of coverage. In the case 
     of an individual who has more than 20 years of coverage but 
     less than 30 years of coverage (as so defined), the percent 
     specified in the applicable subdivision of subparagraph 
     (E)(ii) shall (if such percent is smaller than the applicable 
     percent specified in the following table) be deemed to be the 
     applicable percent specified in the following table:

If the number of such individual's years of coverage (as so defined) 
  is:                                        The applicable percent is:
  29.................................................................85
  28.................................................................80
  27.................................................................75
  26.................................................................70
  25.................................................................65
  24.................................................................60
  23.................................................................55
  22.................................................................50
  21.................................................................45

       ``(ii) For purposes of clause (i), the term `year of 
     coverage' shall have the meaning provided in paragraph 
     (1)(C)(ii), except that the reference to `15 percent' therein 
     shall be deemed to be a reference to `25 percent'.
       ``(H) An individual's primary insurance amount determined 
     under this paragraph

[[Page S4112]]

     shall be deemed to be computed under paragraph (1) of this 
     subsection for the purpose of applying other provisions of 
     this title.
       ``(I) This paragraph shall not apply in the case of an 
     individual whose eligibility for old-age or disability 
     insurance benefits is based on an agreement concluded 
     pursuant to section 233 or an individual who on January 1, 
     1984--
       ``(i) is an employee performing service to which social 
     security coverage is extended on that date solely by reason 
     of the amendments made by section 101 of the Social Security 
     Amendments of 1983; or
       ``(ii) is an employee of a nonprofit organization which (on 
     December 31, 1983) did not have in effect a waiver 
     certificate under section 3121(k) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1954 and to the employees of which social security 
     coverage is extended on that date solely by reason of the 
     amendments made by section 102 of that Act, unless social 
     security coverage had previously extended to service 
     performed by such individual as an employee of that 
     organization under a waiver certificate which was 
     subsequently (prior to December 31, 1983) terminated.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 215(d)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 415(d)(3)) is 
     amended--
       (i) by striking ``subsection (a)(7)(C)'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``subsection (a)(7)(F)'';
       (ii) by striking ``subparagraph (E)'' and inserting 
     ``subparagraph (I)''; and
       (iii) by striking ``subparagraph (D)'' and inserting 
     ``subparagraph (G)(i)''.
       (B) Section 215(f)(9)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     415(f)(9)(A)) is amended by striking ``(a)(7)(C)'' and 
     inserting ``(a)(7)(F)''.

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to 
     monthly insurance benefits for months commencing with or 
     after the 12th calendar month following the date of the 
     enactment of this Act. Notwithstanding section 215(f) of the 
     Social Security Act, the Commissioner of Social Security 
     shall recompute primary insurance amounts to the extent 
     necessary to carry out the amendments made by this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. 
        DeMint):
  S. 868. A bill to encourage savings, promote financial literacy, and 
expand opportunities for young adults by establishing KIDS Accounts; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today I am introducing ``The America 
Saving for Personal Investment, Retirement, and Education (ASPIRE) Act 
of 2005'' along with Senator Corzine, Senator Schumer and Senator 
DeMint. A bipartisan group of members is introducing companion 
legislation in the House of Representatives. The bill creates a Kids 
Investment and Development Savings (KIDS) Account for every child at 
birth and creates a new opportunity for the children of low-income 
Americans to build assets and wealth.
  This country has seen a growing number of Americans investing in the 
stock market and has witnessed an historic boom in homeownership, which 
has increased to record high levels. However, this growth in assets has 
not reached every American. While many middle- and upper-income 
families have increased their assets in the past decade, many low-
income families have not had the same financial success. A recent study 
conducted by the Federal Reserve found that the median net worth of 
families in the bottom 20 percent of the nation's income level was a 
mere $7,900--an amount that is far too low to ensure a comfortable 
economic future for their family. This challenge needs to be addressed 
to ensure that lower income families have a significant opportunity to 
accrue wealth and expand opportunities for their families.
  Under this legislation, KIDS Accounts would be created after a child 
is born and a Social Security number issued. A one-time $500 deposit 
would automatically be placed into a KIDS account. Children from 
households below the national median income would receive an additional 
deposit of $500 at birth and would be eligible to receive dollar-for-
dollar matching funds up to $500 per year for voluntary contributions 
to the account, which cannot exceed $1,000 per year. All funds grow 
tax-free. Access to the account prior to age 18 would not be permitted, 
but kids--in conjunction with their parents--would participate in 
investment decisions and watch their money grow. When the young person 
turns 18, he or she can use the accrued money for asset building 
purposes such as education, homeownership, and retirement planning. 
Accrued funds could also be rolled over into a Roth IRA or 529 post-
secondary education account to expand investment options.
  I would like to highlight what I view as the two major benefits of 
this legislation. The first, and most apparent, is that this bill will 
help give younger individuals, especially low-income Americans, a sound 
financial start to begin their adult life. For example, a typical low-
income family making modest but steady contributions can create a KIDS 
Account worth over $20,000 in 18 years. Second, and perhaps more 
important, is that KIDS Accounts create opportunities for all Americans 
to become more financially literate. The account holders and their 
guardians will choose from a list of possible investment funds and will 
be able to watch their investment grow over time. All Americans will 
have the opportunity to see firsthand that a smart investment now can 
grow over time into considerable wealth.
  I believe that this bill could be a significant and strategic step 
forward in the effort to expand asset opportunities to all Americans, 
and lower-income Americans in particular. I encourage my colleagues to 
support this bipartisan effort.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators 
Santorum, Schumer, and DeMint in introducing the ASPIRE Act of 2005, 
which would expand opportunities for young adults, encourage savings, 
and promote financial literacy, by establishing investment accounts, 
known as KIDS Accounts, for every child in America.
  ASPIRE is based largely on a similar initiative in the United Kingdom 
developed by Prime Minister Tony Blair. Yet despite its British roots, 
the proposal is based on the most basic of American values. By giving 
every young person resources with which to get a start in life, ASPIRE 
will help realize the American ideal of equal opportunity. And by 
making every young person an investor, the proposal would encourage 
self reliance, promote savings, and give every family a personal stake 
in America's economy.
  Under ASPIRE, an investment account would be established for every 
American child upon receiving a Social Security number. Each account 
would be funded initially with $500. Those with incomes less than the 
national median would receive an additional contribution of up to $500, 
and would receive a one-for-one government match for their first $500 
of private contributions each year. Up to $1000 of after-tax private 
contributions would be allowed annually from any source.
  Funds would accumulate tax-free and could not be withdrawn for 
purposes other than higher education until the child reaches the age of 
18. At that point, funds could be withdrawn, according to Roth IRA 
guidelines, either for higher education or for the purchase of a home. 
Funds left unspent would be saved for retirement under rules similar to 
those that apply to Roth IRAs or rolled over to a 529 plan for 
educational expenses. Once the account holder reaches the age of 30, 
the initial $500 government contribution would have to be repaid, 
though exceptions could be made to avoid undue hardship.
  Accounts initially would be held by a government entity that would be 
based on the successful Thrift Savings Plan, or TSP, which now manages 
retirement accounts for Federal employees with relatively low 
administrative costs. As with the TSP, investors would have a range of 
investment options, such as a Government securities fund, a fixed 
income investment fund, and a common stock fund. However, once an 
account holder reaches the age of 18, funds could be rolled over to a 
KIDS Account held at a private institution.
  It is difficult to understate the potential impact of giving every 
American child a funded investment account of their own. For the first 
time, every child will have a meaningful incentive to learn the basics 
of investing, because they will have real resources to invest. For the 
first time, even families with modest incomes will have a significant 
incentive to save, to earn the government match. And, perhaps most 
fundamentally, for the first time, every American child will grow up 
knowing that when they reach adulthood, they will have the ability to 
invest in themselves and in their own education. In short, every child 
will have hope for a real future.
  Considering its potentially significant social and individual 
benefits, the ASPIRE Act requires an investment that is relatively 
modest. It has been

[[Page S4113]]

estimated that, when it becomes effective, the bill's cost would 
represent only about one tenth of one percent of the Federal budget. 
Yet the proposal differs from other proposals for new spending or tax 
cuts because, for the first 18 years, it would not reduce overall 
national savings at all. In that period, virtually every dollar of 
outlays would be saved, and would be available to expand long-term 
economic growth. In fact, the proposal would lead to an increase in 
national savings because of its incentives for families to save more. 
This would help create the economic growth we need to handle the added 
burdens associated with the impending retirement of the baby boomers.
  Senator Santorum and I are excited to be joined this year by Senators 
Schumer and DeMint as sponsors of ASPIRE, along with sponsors of 
identical legislation in the House, Congressmen Harold Ford, Patrick 
Kennedy, Thomas Petri and Phil English. In that process, we have been 
assisted by a broad range of experts and other interested parties, for 
which I am very grateful. However, I want to especially thank Ray 
Boshara and Reid Cramer of the New America Foundation, who have been 
extraordinarily helpful in the development of the legislation, and who 
have taken the lead in efforts to promote this and other asset building 
initiatives.
  Mr. President, the ASPIRE Act is a big new idea based on simple, old 
time American values. It already enjoys strong bipartisan support from 
conservatives and progressives, alike, in both houses of Congress. I 
look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
secure its prompt enactment.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 869. A bill to amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to prohibit 
the Secretary of Agriculture from basing minimum prices for class 1 
milk on the distance or transportation costs from any location that is 
not within a marketing area, except under certain circumstances, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am offering a measure which 
could serve as a first step towards eliminating the inequities borne by 
the dairy farmers of Wisconsin and the upper Midwest under the Federal 
Milk Marketing Order system.
  The Federal Milk Marketing Order system, created nearly 60 years ago, 
establishes minimum prices for milk paid to producers throughout 
various marketing areas in the U.S. For sixty years, this system has 
discriminated against producers in the Upper Midwest by awarding a 
higher price to dairy farmers in proportion to the distance of their 
farms from areas of high milk production, which historically have been 
the region around Eau Claire, WI.
  My legislation is very simple. It identifies the single most harmful 
and unjust feature of the current system, and corrects it. Under the 
current archaic law, the price farmers receive for fluid milk is higher 
the further they are from the Eau Claire region of the Upper Midwest. 
This provision originally was intended to guarantee the supply of fresh 
milk from the high production areas to distant markets in an age of 
difficult transportation and limited refrigeration. But the situation 
has long since changed and the provision persists at the detriment of 
the Wisconsin farmers even though most local milk markets do not 
receive any milk from Wisconsin.
  The bill I introduce today would prohibit the Secretary of 
Agriculture from using distance or transportation costs from any 
location as the basis for pricing milk, unless significant quantities 
of milk are actually transported from that location into the recipient 
market. The Secretary will have to comply with the statutory 
requirement that supply and demand factors be considered as specified 
in the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act when setting milk prices in 
marketing orders. The fact remains that single-basing-point pricing 
simply cannot be justified based on supply and demand for milk both in 
local and national markets and the changing pattern of U.S. milk 
production.
  This bill also requires the Secretary to report to Congress on 
specifically which criteria are used to set milk prices. Finally, the 
Secretary will have to certify to Congress that the criteria used by 
the Department do not in any way attempt to circumvent the prohibition 
on using distance or transportation cost as basis for pricing milk.
  This one change is vitally important to Upper Midwest producers, 
because the current system has penalized them for many years. The 
current system is a double whammy to Upper Midwest dairy farmers--it 
both provides disparate profits for producers in other parts of the 
country and creates artificial economic incentives for milk production. 
As a result, Wisconsin producers have seen national surpluses rise, and 
milk prices fall. Rather than providing adequate supplies of fluid 
milk, the prices often lead to excess production.
  The prices have provided production incentives beyond those needed to 
ensure a local supply of fluid milk in some regions, leading to an 
increase in manufactured products in those marketing orders. Those 
manufactured products directly compete with Wisconsin's processed 
products, eroding our markets and driving national prices down.
  The perverse nature of this system is further illustrated by the fact 
that since 1995, some regions of the U.S., notably the central states 
and the Southwest, are producing so much milk that they are actually 
shipping fluid milk north to the Upper Midwest. The high fluid milk 
prices have generated so much excess production, that these markets 
distant from Eau Claire are now encroaching upon not only our 
manufactured markets, but also our markets for fluid milk, further 
eroding prices in Wisconsin.
  The market-distorting effects of the fluid price differentials in 
federal orders are shown by a previous Congressional Budget Office 
analysis that estimated that the elimination of orders would save $669 
million over five years. Government outlays would fall, CBO concluded, 
because production would fall in response to lower milk prices and 
there would be fewer government purchases of surplus milk. The regions 
that would gain and lose in this scenario illustrate the discrimination 
inherent to the current system. Economic analyses showed that farm 
revenues in a market undisturbed by Federal orders would actually 
increase in the Upper Midwest and fall in most other milk-producing 
regions.
  While this system has been around since 1937, the practice of basing 
fluid milk price differentials on the distance from Eau Claire was 
formalized in the 1960s, when the Upper Midwest arguably was the 
primary reserve for additional supplies of milk. The idea was to 
encourage local supplies of fluid milk in areas of the country that did 
not traditionally produce enough fluid milk to meet their own needs.
  That is no longer the case. The Upper Midwest is no longer the 
primary source of reserve supplies of milk. Unfortunately, the prices 
didn't adjust with changing economic conditions, most notably the shift 
of the dairy industry away from the Upper Midwest and towards the 
Southwest, and specifically California, which now leads the nation in 
milk production.
  The result of this antiquated system has been a decline in the Upper 
Midwest dairy industry, not because it can't produce a product that can 
compete in the marketplace, but because the system discriminates 
against it. Over the past few years Wisconsin has lost dairy farmers at 
a rate of more than 5 per day. The Upper Midwest, with the lowest fluid 
milk prices, is shrinking as a dairy region despite the dairy-friendly 
climate of the region. Some other regions with higher fluid milk prices 
are growing rapidly.
  In a free market with a level playing field, these shifts in 
production might be fair. But in a market where the government is 
setting the prices and providing that artificial advantage to regions 
outside the Upper Midwest, the current system is unconscionable.
  I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and bring reform to this 
outdated system and work to eliminate the inequities in the current 
milk marketing order pricing system.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

[[Page S4114]]

                                 S. 869

       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 ``Federal Milk Marketing 
     Reform Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. LOCATION ADJUSTMENTS FOR MINIMUM PRICES FOR CLASS I 
                   MILK.

       Section 8c(5) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 
     608c(5)), reenacted with amendments by the Agricultural 
     Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (A)--
       (A) in clause (3) of the second sentence, by inserting 
     after ``the locations'' the following: ``within a marketing 
     area subject to the order''; and
       (B) by striking the last 2 sentences and inserting the 
     following: ``Notwithstanding subsection (18) or any other 
     provision of law, when fixing minimum prices for milk of the 
     highest use classification in a marketing area subject to an 
     order under this subsection, the Secretary may not, directly 
     or indirectly, base the prices on the distance from, or all 
     or part of the costs incurred to transport milk to or from, 
     any location that is not within the marketing area subject to 
     the order, unless milk from the location constitutes at least 
     50 percent of the total supply of milk of the highest use 
     classification in the marketing area. The Secretary shall 
     report to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
     and Forestry of the Senate on the criteria that are used as 
     the basis for the minimum prices referred to in the preceding 
     sentence, including a certification that the minimum prices 
     are made in accordance with the preceding sentence.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (B)(c), by inserting after ``the 
     locations'' the following: ``within a marketing area subject 
     to the order''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN:
  S. 873. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
deliver a meaningful benefit and lower prescription drug prices under 
the medicare program; read the first time.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 873

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare Prescription Drug 
     Savings and Choice Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF MEDICARE OPERATED PRESCRIPTION DRUG 
                   PLAN OPTION.

       (a) In General.--Subpart 2 of part D of the Social Security 
     Act is amended by inserting after section 1860D-11 the 
     following new section:


           ``MEDICARE OPERATED PRESCRIPTION DRUG PLAN OPTION

       ``Sec. 1860D-11A. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of this part, for each year (beginning with 
     2006), in addition to any plans offered under section 1860D-
     11, the Secretary shall offer one or more medicare operated 
     prescription drug plans (as defined in subsection (c)) with a 
     service area that consists of the entire United States and 
     shall enter into negotiations with pharmaceutical 
     manufacturers to reduce the purchase cost of covered part D 
     drugs for eligible part D individuals in accordance with 
     subsection (b).
       ``(b) Negotiations.--Notwithstanding section 1860D-11(i), 
     for purposes of offering a medicare operated prescription 
     drug plan under this section, the Secretary shall negotiate 
     with pharmaceutical manufacturers with respect to the 
     purchase price of covered part D drugs and shall encourage 
     the use of more affordable therapeutic equivalents to the 
     extent such practices do not override medical necessity as 
     determined by the prescribing physician. To the extent 
     practicable and consistent with the previous sentence, the 
     Secretary shall implement strategies similar to those used by 
     other Federal purchasers of prescription drugs, and other 
     strategies, to reduce the purchase cost of covered part D 
     drugs.
       ``(c) Medicare Operated Prescription Drug Plan Defined.--
     For purposes of this part, the term `medicare operated 
     prescription drug plan' means a prescription drug plan that 
     offers qualified prescription drug coverage and access to 
     negotiated prices described in section 1860D-2(a)(1)(A). Such 
     a plan may offer supplemental prescription drug coverage in 
     the same manner as other qualified prescription drug coverage 
     offered by other prescription drug plans.
       ``(d) Monthly Beneficiary Premium.--
       ``(1) Qualified prescription drug coverage.--The monthly 
     beneficiary premium for qualified prescription drug coverage 
     and access to negotiated prices described in section 1860D-
     2(a)(1)(A) to be charged under a medicare operated 
     prescription drug plan shall be uniform nationally. Such 
     premium for months in 2006 shall be $35 and for months in 
     succeeding years shall be based on the average monthly per 
     capita actuarial cost of offering the medicare operated 
     prescription drug plan for the year involved, including 
     administrative expenses.
       ``(2) Supplemental prescription drug coverage.--Insofar as 
     a medicare operated prescription drug plan offers 
     supplemental prescription drug coverage, the Secretary may 
     adjust the amount of the premium charged under paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Requirement for at least one plan with a $35 premium 
     in 2006.--The Secretary shall ensure that at least one 
     medicare operated prescription drug plan offered in 2006 has 
     a monthly premium of $35.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 1860D-3(a) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395w-103(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Availability of the medicare operated prescription 
     drug plan.--
       ``(A) In general.--A medicare operated prescription drug 
     plan (as defined in section 1860D-11A(c)) shall be offered 
     nationally in accordance with section 1860D-11A.
       ``(B) Relationship to other plans.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), a medicare 
     operated prescription drug plan shall be offered in addition 
     to any qualifying plan or fallback prescription drug plan 
     offered in a PDP region and shall not be considered to be 
     such a plan for purposes of meeting the requirements of this 
     subsection.
       ``(ii) Designation as a fallback plan.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of this part, the Secretary may designate the 
     medicare operated prescription drug plan as the fallback 
     prescription drug plan for any fallback service area (as 
     defined in section 1860D-11(g)(3)) determined to be 
     appropriate by the Secretary.''.
       (2) Section 1860D-13(c)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
     113(c)(3)) is amended--
       (A) in the heading, by inserting ``and medicare operated 
     prescription drug plans'' after ``Fallback plans''; and
       (B) by inserting ``or a medicare operated prescription drug 
     plan'' after ``a fallback prescription drug plan''.
       (3) Section 1860D-16(b)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
     116(b)(1)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) payments for expenses incurred with respect to the 
     operation of medicare operated prescription drug plans under 
     section 1860D-11A.''.
       (4) Section 1860D-41(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 141(a)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(19) Medicare operated prescription drug plan.--The term 
     `medicare operated prescription drug plan' has the meaning 
     given such term in section 1860D-11A(c).''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section 
     101 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and 
     Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173; 117 Stat. 
     2071).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln):
  S. 874. A bill to establish a national health program administered by 
the Office of Personnel Management to offer health benefits plans to 
individuals who are not Federal employees, and for other purposes; read 
the first time.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 874

       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 Employers Health 
     Benefits Program Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) In General.--In this Act, the terms ``member of 
     family'', ``health benefits plan'', ``carrier'', ``employee 
     organizations'', and ``dependent'' have the meanings given 
     such terms in section 8901 of title 5, United States Code.
       (b) Other Terms.--In this Act:
       (1) Employee.--The term ``employee'' has the meaning given 
     such term under section 3(6) of the Employee Retirement 
     Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002(6)). Such term 
     shall not include an employee of the Federal Government.
       (2) Employer.--The term ``employer'' has the meaning given 
     such term under section 3(5) of the Employee Retirement 
     Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002(5)), except that 
     such term shall include only employers who employed an 
     average of at least 1 but not more than 100 employees on 
     business days during the year preceding the date of 
     application. Such term shall not include the Federal 
     Government.
       (3) Health status-related factor.--The term ``health 
     status-related factor'' has the meaning given such term in 
     section 2791(d)(9) of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 300gg-91(d)(9)).
       (4) Office.--The term ``Office'' means the Office of 
     Personnel Management.
       (5) Participating employer.--The term ``participating 
     employer'' means an employer that--

[[Page S4115]]

       (A) elects to provide health insurance coverage under this 
     Act to its employees; and
       (B) is not offering other comprehensive health insurance 
     coverage to such employees.
       (c) Application of Certain Rules in Determination of 
     Employer Size.--For purposes of subsection (b)(2):
       (1) Application of aggregation rule for employers.--All 
     persons treated as a single employer under subsection (b), 
     (c), (m), or (o) of section 414 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 shall be treated as 1 employer.
       (2) Employers not in existence in preceding year.--In the 
     case of an employer which was not in existence for the full 
     year prior to the date on which the employer applies to 
     participate, the determination of whether such employer meets 
     the requirements of subsection (b)(2) shall be based on the 
     average number of employees that it is reasonably expected 
     such employer will employ on business days in the employer's 
     first full year.
       (3) Predecessors.--Any reference in this subsection to an 
     employer shall include a reference to any predecessor of such 
     employer.
       (d) Waiver and Continuation of Participation.--
       (1) Waiver.--The Office may waive the limitations relating 
     to the size of an employer which may participate in the 
     health insurance program established under this Act on a case 
     by case basis if the Office determines that such employer 
     makes a compelling case for such a waiver. In making 
     determinations under this paragraph, the Office may consider 
     the effects of the employment of temporary and seasonal 
     workers and other factors.
       (2) Continuation of participation.--An employer 
     participating in the program under this Act that experiences 
     an increase in the number of employees so that such employer 
     has in excess of 100 employees, may not be excluded from 
     participation solely as a result of such increase in 
     employees.

     SEC. 3. HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR NON-FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Administration.--The Office shall administer a health 
     insurance program for non-Federal employees and employers in 
     accordance with this Act.
       (b) Regulations.--Except as provided under this Act, the 
     Office shall prescribe regulations to apply the provisions of 
     chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, to the greatest 
     extent practicable to participating carriers, employers, and 
     employees covered under this Act.
       (c) Limitations.--In no event shall the enactment of this 
     Act result in--
       (1) any increase in the level of individual or Federal 
     Government contributions required under chapter 89 of title 
     5, United States Code, including copayments or deductibles;
       (2) any decrease in the types of benefits offered under 
     such chapter 89; or
       (3) any other change that would adversely affect the 
     coverage afforded under such chapter 89 to employees and 
     annuitants and members of family under that chapter.
       (d) Enrollment.--The Office shall develop methods to 
     facilitate enrollment under this Act, including the use of 
     the Internet.
       (e) Contracts for Administration.--The Office may enter 
     into contracts for the performance of appropriate 
     administrative functions under this Act.
       (f) Separate Risk Pool.--In the administration of this Act, 
     the Office shall ensure that covered employees under this Act 
     are in a risk pool that is separate from the risk pool 
     maintained for covered individuals under chapter 89 of title 
     5, United States Code.
       (g) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to require a carrier that is participating in the 
     program under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, to 
     provide health benefits plan coverage under this Act.

     SEC. 4. CONTRACT REQUIREMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Office may enter into contracts with 
     qualified carriers offering health benefits plans of the type 
     described in section 8903 or 8903a of title 5, United States 
     Code, without regard to section 5 of title 41, United States 
     Code, or other statutes requiring competitive bidding, to 
     provide health insurance coverage to employees of 
     participating employers under this Act. Each contract shall 
     be for a uniform term of at least 1 year, but may be made 
     automatically renewable from term to term in the absence of 
     notice of termination by either party. In entering into such 
     contracts, the Office shall ensure that health benefits 
     coverage is provided for individuals only, married 
     individuals without children, and families.
       (b) Eligibility.--A carrier shall be eligible to enter into 
     a contract under subsection (a) if such carrier--
       (1) is licensed to offer health benefits plan coverage in 
     each State in which the plan is offered; and
       (2) meets such other requirements as determined appropriate 
     by the Office.
       (c) Statement of Benefits.--
       (1) In general.--Each contract under this Act shall contain 
     a detailed statement of benefits offered and shall include 
     information concerning such maximums, limitations, 
     exclusions, and other definitions of benefits as the Office 
     considers necessary or desirable.
       (2) Nationwide plan.--The Office shall develop a benefit 
     package that shall be offered in the case of a contract for a 
     health benefit plan that is to be offered on a nationwide 
     basis.
       (d) Standards.--The minimum standards prescribed for health 
     benefits plans under section 8902(e) of title 5, United 
     States Code, and for carriers offering plans, shall apply to 
     plans and carriers under this Act. Approval of a plan may be 
     withdrawn by the Office only after notice and opportunity for 
     hearing to the carrier concerned without regard to subchapter 
     II of chapter 5 and chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code.
       (e) Conversion.--
       (1) In general.--A contract may not be made or a plan 
     approved under this section if the carrier under such 
     contract or plan does not offer to each enrollee whose 
     enrollment in the plan is ended, except by a cancellation of 
     enrollment, a temporary extension of coverage during which 
     the individual may exercise the option to convert, without 
     evidence of good health, to a nongroup contract providing 
     health benefits. An enrollee who exercises this option shall 
     pay the full periodic charges of the nongroup contract.
       (2) Noncancellable.--The benefits and coverage made 
     available under paragraph (1) may not be canceled by the 
     carrier except for fraud, over-insurance, or nonpayment of 
     periodic charges.
       (f) Rates.--Rates charged under health benefits plans under 
     this Act shall reasonably and equitably reflect the cost of 
     the benefits provided. Such rates shall be determined on a 
     basis which, in the judgment of the Office, is consistent 
     with the lowest schedule of basic rates generally charged for 
     new group health benefits plans issued to large employers. 
     The rates determined for the first contract term shall be 
     continued for later contract terms, except that they may be 
     readjusted for any later term, based on past experience and 
     benefit adjustments under the later contract. Any 
     readjustment in rates shall be made in advance of the 
     contract term in which they will apply and on a basis which, 
     in the judgment of the Office, is consistent with the general 
     practice of carriers which issue group health benefits plans 
     to large employers. Rates charged for coverage under this Act 
     shall not vary based on health-status related factors.
       (g) Requirement of Payment for or Provision of Health 
     Service.--Each contract entered into under this Act shall 
     require the carrier to agree to pay for or provide a health 
     service or supply in an individual case if the Office finds 
     that the employee, annuitant, family member, former spouse, 
     or person having continued coverage under section 8905a of 
     title 5, United States Code, is entitled thereto under the 
     terms of the contract.

     SEC. 5. ELIGIBILITY.

       An individual shall be eligible to enroll in a plan under 
     this Act if such individual--
       (1) is an employee of an employer described in section 
     2(b)(2), or is a self employed individual as defined in 
     section 401(c)(1)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; 
     and
       (2) is not otherwise enrolled or eligible for enrollment in 
     a plan under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code.

     SEC. 6. ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS TO FEDERAL EMPLOYEE PLANS.

       (a) Treatment of Employee.--For purposes of enrollment in a 
     health benefits plan under this Act, an individual who had 
     coverage under a health insurance plan and is not a qualified 
     beneficiary as defined under section 4980B(g)(1) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be treated in a similar 
     manner as an individual who begins employment as an employee 
     under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code.
       (b) Preexisting Condition Exclusions.--
       (1) In general.--Each contract under this Act may include a 
     preexisting condition exclusion as defined under section 
     9801(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       (2) Exclusion period.--
       (A) In general.--A preexisting condition exclusion under 
     this subsection shall provide for coverage of a preexisting 
     condition to begin not later than 6 months after the date on 
     which the coverage of the individual under a health benefits 
     plan commences, reduced by 1 month for each month that the 
     individual was covered under a health insurance plan 
     immediately preceding the date the individual submitted an 
     application for coverage under this Act.
       (B) Lapse in coverage.--For purposes of this paragraph, a 
     lapse in coverage of not more than 63 days immediately 
     preceding the date of the submission of an application for 
     coverage under this Act shall not be considered a lapse in 
     continuous coverage.
       (c) Rates and Premiums.--
       (1) In general.--Rates charged and premiums paid for a 
     health benefits plan under this Act--
       (A) shall be determined in accordance with this subsection;
       (B) may be annually adjusted and differ from such rates 
     charged and premiums paid for the same health benefits plan 
     offered under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code;
       (C) shall be negotiated in the same manner as rates and 
     premiums are negotiated under such chapter 89; and
       (D) shall be adjusted to cover the administrative costs of 
     the Office under this Act.
       (2) Determinations.--In determining rates and premiums 
     under this Act, the following provisions shall apply:
       (A) In general.--A carrier that enters into a contract 
     under this Act shall determine that amount of premiums to 
     assess for coverage under a health benefits plan based on an 
     community rate that may be annually adjusted--

[[Page S4116]]

       (i) for the geographic area involved if the adjustment is 
     based on geographical divisions that are not smaller than a 
     metropolitan statistical area;
       (ii) based on whether such coverage is for an individual, a 
     married individual with no children, or a family; and
       (iii) based on the age of covered individuals (subject to 
     subparagraph (B)).
       (B) Age adjustments.--
       (i) In general.--With respect to subparagraph (A)(iii), in 
     making adjustments based on age, a carrier may not use age 
     brackets in increments that are smaller than 5 years, which 
     begin not earlier than age 30 and end not later than age 65.
       (ii) Age 65 and older.--With respect to subparagraph 
     (A)(iii), a carrier may develop separate rates for covered 
     individuals who are 65 years of age or older for whom 
     medicare is the primary payor for health benefits coverage 
     which is not covered under medicare.
       (iii) Limitation.--In making an adjustment to premium rates 
     under subparagraph (A)(iii), a carrier shall ensure that such 
     adjustment does not result in an average premium rate 
     applicable to enrollees under the plan involved that is more 
     than 200 percent of the lowest rate for all age groups.
       (d) Termination and Reenrollment.--If an individual who is 
     enrolled in a health benefits plan under this Act terminates 
     the enrollment, the individual shall not be eligible for 
     reenrollment until the first open enrollment period following 
     the expiration of 6 months after the date of such 
     termination.
       (e) Preemption.--
       (1) Health insurance or plans.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the terms of any contract entered into under this Act that 
     relate to the nature, provision, or extent of coverage or 
     benefits shall supersede and preempt any State or local law, 
     or any regulation issued thereunder, which relates to the 
     nature, provision, or extent of coverage or benefits.
       (B) Local plans.--With respect to a contract entered into 
     under this Act under which a carrier will offer health 
     benefits plan coverage in a limited geographic area, 
     subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the extent that a 
     mandated benefit law is in effect in the State in which the 
     plan is offered. Such mandated benefit law shall continue to 
     apply to such health benefits plan.
       (C) Rating rules.--The rating requirements under subsection 
     (c)(2) shall supercede State rating rules for qualified plans 
     under this Act.
       (2) Limitation.--Nothing in this subsection shall be 
     construed to preempt--
       (A) any State or local law or regulation except those laws 
     and regulations described in subparagraphs (A) and (C) of 
     paragraph (1); and
       (B) State network adequacy laws.
       (f) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to limit the application of the service-charge 
     system used by the Office for determining profits for 
     participating carriers under chapter 89 of title 5, United 
     States Code.

     SEC. 7. ENCOURAGING PARTICIPATION BY CARRIERS THROUGH 
                   ADJUSTMENTS FOR RISK.

       (a) Application of Risk Corridors.--
       (1) In general.--This section shall only apply to carriers 
     with respect to health benefits plans offered under this Act 
     during any of calendar years 2006 through 2010.
       (2) Notification of costs under the plan.--In the case of a 
     carrier that offers a health benefits plan under this Act in 
     any of calendar years 2006 through 2010, the carrier shall 
     notify the Office, before such date in the succeeding year as 
     the Office specifies, of the total amount of costs incurred 
     in providing benefits under the health benefits plan for the 
     year involved and the portion of such costs that is 
     attributable to administrative expenses.
       (3) Allowable costs defined.--For purposes of this section, 
     the term ``allowable costs'' means, with respect to a health 
     benefits plan offered by a carrier under this Act, for a 
     year, the total amount of costs described in paragraph (2) 
     for the plan and year, reduced by the portion of such costs 
     attributable to administrative expenses incurred in providing 
     the benefits described in such paragraph.
       (b) Adjustment of Payment.--
       (1) No adjustment if allowable costs within 3 percent of 
     target amount.--If the allowable costs for the carrier with 
     respect to the health benefits plan involved for a calendar 
     year are at least 97 percent, but do not exceed 103 percent, 
     of the target amount for the plan and year involved, there 
     shall be no payment adjustment under this section for the 
     plan and year.
       (2) Increase in payment if allowable costs above 103 
     percent of target amount.--
       (A) Costs between 103 and 108 percent of target amount.--If 
     the allowable costs for the carrier with respect to the 
     health benefits plan involved for the year are greater than 
     103 percent, but not greater than 108 percent, of the target 
     amount for the plan and year, the Office shall reimburse the 
     carrier for such excess costs through payment to the carrier 
     of an amount equal to 75 percent of the difference between 
     such allowable costs and 103 percent of such target amount.
       (B) Costs above 108 percent of target amount.--If the 
     allowable costs for the carrier with respect to the health 
     benefits plan involved for the year are greater than 108 
     percent of the target amount for the plan and year, the 
     Office shall reimburse the carrier for such excess costs 
     through payment to the carrier in an amount equal to the sum 
     of--
       (i) 3.75 percent of such target amount; and
       (ii) 90 percent of the difference between such allowable 
     costs and 108 percent of such target amount.
       (3) Reduction in payment if allowable costs below 97 
     percent of target amount.--
       (A) Costs between 92 and 97 percent of target amount.--If 
     the allowable costs for the carrier with respect to the 
     health benefits plan involved for the year are less than 97 
     percent, but greater than or equal to 92 percent, of the 
     target amount for the plan and year, the carrier shall be 
     required to pay into the contingency reserve fund maintained 
     under section 8909(b)(2) of title 5, United States Code, an 
     amount equal to 75 percent of the difference between 97 
     percent of the target amount and such allowable costs.
       (B) Costs below 92 percent of target amount.--If the 
     allowable costs for the carrier with respect to the health 
     benefits plan involved for the year are less than 92 percent 
     of the target amount for the plan and year, the carrier shall 
     be required to pay into the stabilization fund under section 
     8909(b)(2) of title 5, United States Code, an amount equal to 
     the sum of--
       (i) 3.75 percent of such target amount; and
       (ii) 90 percent of the difference between 92 percent of 
     such target amount and such allowable costs.
       (4) Target amount described.--
       (A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     ``target amount'' means, with respect to a health benefits 
     plan offered by a carrier under this Act in any of calendar 
     years 2006 through 2010, an amount equal to--
       (i) the total of the monthly premiums estimated by the 
     carrier and approved by the Office to be paid for enrollees 
     in the plan under this Act for the calendar year involved; 
     reduced by
       (ii) the amount of administrative expenses that the carrier 
     estimates, and the Office approves, will be incurred by the 
     carrier with respect to the plan for such calendar year.
       (B) Submission of target amount.--Not later than December 
     31, 2005, and each December 31 thereafter through calendar 
     year 2009, a carrier shall submit to the Office a description 
     of the target amount for such carrier with respect to health 
     benefits plans provided by the carrier under this Act.
       (c) Disclosure of Information.--
       (1) In general.--Each contract under this Act shall 
     provide--
       (A) that a carrier offering a health benefits plan under 
     this Act shall provide the Office with such information as 
     the Office determines is necessary to carry out this 
     subsection including the notification of costs under 
     subsection (a)(2) and the target amount under subsection 
     (b)(4)(B); and
       (B) that the Office has the right to inspect and audit any 
     books and records of the organization that pertain to the 
     information regarding costs provided to the Office under such 
     subsections.
       (2) Restriction on use of information.--Information 
     disclosed or obtained pursuant to the provisions of this 
     subsection may be used by officers, employees, and 
     contractors of the Office only for the purposes of, and to 
     the extent necessary in, carrying out this section.

     SEC. 8. ENCOURAGING PARTICIPATION BY CARRIERS THROUGH 
                   REINSURANCE.

       (a) Establishment.--The Office shall establish a 
     reinsurance fund to provide payments to carriers that 
     experience one or more catastrophic claims during a year for 
     health benefits provided to individuals enrolled in a health 
     benefits plan under this Act.
       (b) Eligibility for Payments.--To be eligible for a payment 
     from the reinsurance fund for a plan year, a carrier under 
     this Act shall submit to the Office an application that 
     contains--
       (1) a certification by the carrier that the carrier paid 
     for at least one episode of care during the year for covered 
     health benefits for an individual in an amount that is in 
     excess of $50,000; and
       (2) such other information determined appropriate by the 
     Office.
       (c) Payment.--
       (1) In general.--The amount of a payment from the 
     reinsurance fund to a carrier under this section for a 
     catastrophic episode of care shall be determined by the 
     Office but shall not exceed an amount equal to 80 percent of 
     the applicable catastrophic claim amount.
       (2) Applicable catastrophic claim amount.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (1), the applicable catastrophic episode of care 
     amount shall be equal to the difference between--
       (A) the amount of the catastrophic claim; and
       (B) $50,000.
       (3) Limitation.--In determining the amount of a payment 
     under paragraph (1), if the amount of the catastrophic claim 
     exceeds the amount that would be paid for the healthcare 
     items or services involved under title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.), the Office shall use 
     the amount that would be paid under such title XVIII for 
     purposes of paragraph (2)(A).
       (d) Definition.--In this section, the term ``catastrophic 
     claim'' means a claim submitted to a carrier, by or on behalf 
     of an enrollee in a health benefits plan under this Act, that 
     is in excess of $50,000.

[[Page S4117]]

     SEC. 9. CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND.

       Beginning on October 1, 2010, the Office may use amounts 
     appropriated under section 14(a) that remain unobligated to 
     establish a contingency reserve fund to provide assistance to 
     carriers offering health benefits plans under this Act that 
     experience unanticipated financial hardships (as determined 
     by the Office).

     SEC. 10. EMPLOYER PARTICIPATION.

       (a) Regulations.--The Office shall prescribe regulations 
     providing for employer participation under this Act, 
     including the offering of health benefits plans under this 
     Act to employees.
       (b) Enrollment and Offering of Other Coverage.--
       (1) Enrollment.--A participating employer shall ensure that 
     each eligible employee has an opportunity to enroll in a plan 
     under this Act.
       (2) Prohibition on offering other comprehensive health 
     benefit coverage.--A participating employer may not offer a 
     health insurance plan providing comprehensive health benefit 
     coverage to employees other than a health benefits plan 
     that--
       (A) meets the requirements described in section 4(a); and
       (B) is offered only through the enrollment process 
     established by the Office under section 3.
       (3) Offer of supplemental coverage options.--
       (A) In general.--A participating employer may offer 
     supplementary coverage options to employees.
       (B) Definition.--In subparagraph (A), the term 
     ``supplementary coverage'' means benefits described as 
     ``excepted benefits'' under section 2791(c) of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-91(c)).
       (c) Rule of Construction.--Except as provided in section 
     15, nothing in this Act shall be construed to require that an 
     employer make premium contributions on behalf of employees.

     SEC. 11. ADMINISTRATION THROUGH REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE 
                   ENTITIES.

       (a) In General.--In order to provide for the administration 
     of the benefits under this Act with maximum efficiency and 
     convenience for participating employers and health care 
     providers and other individuals and entities providing 
     services to such employers, the Office is authorized to enter 
     into contracts with eligible entities to perform, on a 
     regional basis, one or more of the following:
       (1) Collect and maintain all information relating to 
     individuals, families, and employers participating in the 
     program under this Act in the region served.
       (2) Receive, disburse, and account for payments of premiums 
     to participating employers by individuals in the region 
     served, and for payments by participating employers to 
     carriers.
       (3) Serve as a channel of communication between carriers, 
     participating employers, and individuals relating to the 
     administration of this Act.
       (4) Otherwise carry out such activities for the 
     administration of this Act, in such manner, as may be 
     provided for in the contract entered into under this section.
       (5) The processing of grievances and appeals.
       (b) Application.--To be eligible to receive a contract 
     under subsection (a), an entity shall prepare and submit to 
     the Office an application at such time, in such manner, and 
     containing such information as the Office may require.
       (c) Process.--
       (1) Competitive bidding.--All contracts under this section 
     shall be awarded through a competitive bidding process on a 
     bi-annual basis.
       (2) Requirement.--No contract shall be entered into with 
     any entity under this section unless the Office finds that 
     such entity will perform its obligations under the contract 
     efficiently and effectively and will meet such requirements 
     as to financial responsibility, legal authority, and other 
     matters as the Office finds pertinent.
       (3) Publication of standards and criteria.--The Office 
     shall publish in the Federal Register standards and criteria 
     for the efficient and effective performance of contract 
     obligations under this section, and opportunity shall be 
     provided for public comment prior to implementation. In 
     establishing such standards and criteria, the Office shall 
     provide for a system to measure an entity's performance of 
     responsibilities.
       (4) Term.--Each contract under this section shall be for a 
     term of at least 1 year, and may be made automatically 
     renewable from term to term in the absence of notice by 
     either party of intention to terminate at the end of the 
     current term, except that the Office may terminate any such 
     contract at any time (after such reasonable notice and 
     opportunity for hearing to the entity involved as the Office 
     may provide in regulations) if the Office finds that the 
     entity has failed substantially to carry out the contract or 
     is carrying out the contract in a manner inconsistent with 
     the efficient and effective administration of the program 
     established by this Act.
       (d) Terms of Contract.--A contract entered into under this 
     section shall include--
       (1) a description of the duties of the contracting entity;
       (2) an assurance that the entity will furnish to the Office 
     such timely information and reports as the Office determines 
     appropriate;
       (3) an assurance that the entity will maintain such records 
     and afford such access thereto as the Office finds necessary 
     to assure the correctness and verification of the information 
     and reports under paragraph (2) and otherwise to carry out 
     the purposes of this Act;
       (4) an assurance that the entity shall comply with such 
     confidentiality and privacy protection guidelines and 
     procedures as the Office may require; and
       (5) such other terms and conditions not inconsistent with 
     this section as the Office may find necessary or appropriate.

     SEC. 12. COORDINATION WITH SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS.

       Benefits under this Act shall, with respect to an 
     individual who is entitled to benefits under part A of title 
     XVIII of the Social Security Act, be offered (for use in 
     coordination with those medicare benefits) to the same extent 
     and in the same manner as if coverage were under chapter 89 
     of title 5, United States Code.

     SEC. 13. PUBLIC EDUCATION CAMPAIGN.

       (a) In General.--In carrying out this Act, the Office shall 
     develop and implement an educational campaign to provide 
     information to employers and the general public concerning 
     the health insurance program developed under this Act.
       (b) Annual Progress Reports.--Not later than 1 year and 2 
     years after the implementation of the campaign under 
     subsection (a), the Office shall submit to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress a report that describes the activities 
     of the Office under subsection (a), including a determination 
     by the office of the percentage of employers with knowledge 
     of the health benefits programs provided for under this Act.
       (c) Public Education Campaign.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007.

     SEC. 14. APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Mandatory Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated, and there are appropriated, to carry out 
     sections 7 and 8--
       (1) $4,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (2) $4,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       (3) $4,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
       (4) $3,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
       (5) $3,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
       (b) Other Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Office, such sums as may be necessary in 
     each fiscal year for the development and administration of 
     the program under this Act.

     SEC. 15. REFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR SMALL BUSINESS EMPLOYEE HEALTH 
                   INSURANCE EXPENSES.

       (a) In General.--Subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     refundable credits) is amended by redesignating section 36 as 
     section 37 and inserting after section 35 the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 36. SMALL BUSINESS EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE EXPENSES.

       ``(a) Determination of Amount.--In the case of a qualified 
     small employer, there shall be allowed as a credit against 
     the tax imposed by this subtitle for the taxable year an 
     amount equal to the sum of--
       ``(1) the expense amount described in subsection (b), and
       ``(2) the expense amount described in subsection (c), paid 
     by the taxpayer during the taxable year.
       ``(b) Subsection (b) Expense Amount.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) In general.--The expense amount described in this 
     subsection is the applicable percentage of the amount of 
     qualified employee health insurance expenses of each 
     qualified employee.
       ``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1)--
       ``(A) In general.--The applicable percentage is equal to--
       ``(i) 25 percent in the case of self-only coverage,
       ``(ii) 35 percent in the case of family coverage (as 
     defined in section 220(c)(5)), and
       ``(iii) 30 percent in the case of coverage for married 
     adults with no children.
       ``(B) Bonus for payment of greater percentage of 
     premiums.--The applicable percentage otherwise specified in 
     subparagraph (A) shall be increased by 5 percentage points 
     for each additional 10 percent of the qualified employee 
     health insurance expenses of each qualified employee 
     exceeding 60 percent which are paid by the qualified small 
     employer.
       ``(c) Subsection (c) Expense Amount.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) In general.--The expense amount described in this 
     subsection is, with respect to the first credit year of a 
     qualified small employer which is an eligible employer, 10 
     percent of the qualified employee health insurance expenses 
     of each qualified employee.
       ``(2) First credit year.--For purposes of paragraph (1), 
     the term `first credit year' means the taxable year which 
     includes the date that the health insurance coverage to which 
     the qualified employee health insurance expenses relate 
     becomes effective.
       ``(3) Eligible employer.--For purposes of paragraph (1), 
     the term `eligible employer' shall not include a qualified 
     small employer if, during the 3-taxable year period 
     immediately preceding the first credit year, the employer or 
     any member of any controlled group including the employer (or 
     any predecessor of either) established or maintained health 
     insurance coverage for substantially the same employees as 
     are the qualified employees to which the qualified employee 
     health insurance expenses relate.

[[Page S4118]]

       ``(d) Limitation Based on Wages.--
       ``(1) In general.--The percentage which would (but for this 
     subsection) be taken into account as the percentage for 
     purposes of subsection (b)(2) or (c)(1) for the taxable year 
     shall be reduced (but not below zero) by the percentage 
     determined under paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Amount of reduction.--
       ``(A) In general.--The percentage determined under this 
     paragraph is the percentage which bears the same ratio to the 
     percentage which would be so taken into account as--
       ``(i) the excess of--

       ``(I) the qualified employee's wages at an annual rate 
     during such taxable year, over
       ``(II) $25,000, bears to

       ``(ii) $5,000.
       ``(B) Annual adjustment.--For each taxable year after 2006, 
     the dollar amounts specified for the preceding taxable year 
     (after the application of this subparagraph) shall be 
     increased by the same percentage as the average percentage 
     increase in premiums under the Federal Employees Health 
     Benefits Program under chapter 89 of title 5, United States 
     Code for the calendar year in which such taxable year begins 
     over the preceding calendar year.
       ``(e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Qualified small employer.--The term `qualified small 
     employer' means any employer (as defined in section 2(b)(2) 
     of the Small Employers Health Benefits Program Act of 2005) 
     which--
       ``(A) is a participating employer (as defined in section 
     2(b)(5) of such Act), and
       ``(B) pays or incurs at least 60 percent of the qualified 
     employee health insurance expenses of each qualified 
     employee.
       ``(2) Qualified employee health insurance expenses.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified employee health 
     insurance expenses' means any amount paid by an employer for 
     health insurance coverage under such Act to the extent such 
     amount is attributable to coverage provided to any employee 
     while such employee is a qualified employee.
       ``(B) Exception for amounts paid under salary reduction 
     arrangements.--No amount paid or incurred for health 
     insurance coverage pursuant to a salary reduction arrangement 
     shall be taken into account under subparagraph (A).
       ``(3) Qualified employee.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified employee' means, 
     with respect to any period, an employee (as defined in 
     section 2(b)(1) of such Act) of an employer if the total 
     amount of wages paid or incurred by such employer to such 
     employee at an annual rate during the taxable year exceeds 
     $5,000.
       ``(B) Wages.--The term `wages' has the meaning given such 
     term by section 3121(a) (determined without regard to any 
     dollar limitation contained in such section).
       ``(f) Certain Rules Made Applicable.--For purposes of this 
     section, rules similar to the rules of section 52 shall 
     apply.
       ``(g) Credits for Nonprofit Organizations.--Any credit 
     which would be allowable under subsection (a) with respect to 
     a qualified small business if such qualified small business 
     were not exempt from tax under this chapter shall be treated 
     as a credit allowable under this subpart to such qualified 
     small business.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Paragraph (2) of section 1324(b) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting before the period ``, or 
     from section 36 of such Code''.
       (2) The table of sections for subpart C of part IV of 
     subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by striking the last item and inserting the 
     following new items:

``Sec. 36 Small business employee health insurance expenses
``Sec. 37 Overpayments of tax''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to amounts paid or incurred in taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 2005.

     SEC. 16. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Except as provided in section 10(e), this Act shall take 
     effect on the date of enactment of this Act and shall apply 
     to contracts that take effect with respect to calendar year 
     2006 and each calendar year thereafter.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. 
        Obama):
  S. 875. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the 
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to increase 
participation in section 401(k) plans through automatic contribution 
trusts, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Save More 
for Retirement Act of 2005 with my colleagues Senator Snowe, Senator 
Lieberman and Senator Obama. This legislation is designed to achieve 
two important savings goals. First, it will encourage workers who are 
not currently participating in their employer's retirement plan to do 
so. Second, it will encourage workers who are currently investing in 
40l(k) plans to save even more. At a time when national savings is at a 
near all-time low, Congress needs to look at ways to expand retirement 
savings, particularly savings garnered through an employer-provided 
retirement plan. This legislation is a commonsense approach that is 
based on research undertaken and compiled by a host of retirement 
policy experts from both academia and business. It is imperative that 
the Congress continues to look for new and innovative ways to help 
workers save for their retirement through the existing employer-
provided plan system. This legislation accomplishes that goal by 
creating incentives for employers to modify their existing plans to add 
features that have been proven to increase savings.
  The first step is to encourage employers to add a feature to its 
40l(k) or similar plans to enroll its employees in the plan upon being 
hired unless the employee notifies the employer that he or she does not 
want to participate in the plan. The decision to participate still 
rests entirely with the employees, as they can opt out before 
participation begins or at any time afterward. Although some employers 
do offer these types of plans now, most maintain a more traditional 
structure under which the employee must opt into participating. Studies 
have indicated that such a seemingly minor change in how employees are 
enrolled can dramatically increase participation rates. It has been 
reported that one large company experienced an increase in employee 
participation in their retirement plan of 50 percent once the features 
were changed to automatically enroll its employees. Clearly the first 
step towards increasing our national savings rate is to get more people 
saving.
  Obviously the second step is to get those who are saving to set aside 
even more for their retirement years. For this reason, the legislation 
would encourage plans to add a feature that increases employees' 
contributions annually until it reaches at least 10 percent of the 
employees' compensation. Again, studies have repeatedly demonstrated 
that people are more likely to agree to save more in the future than 
they currently do. It has also been demonstrated that people are more 
likely to agree to save more in the future if they make the decision 
today and do not wait until future years to make that decision. In our 
legislation, the employee can stop a future increase or change the 
contribution rate. The employer has the discretion to tie these 
automatic increases to either an annual increase or to increases in 
salary or compensation. This is closely modeled on the Save More 
Tomorrow, SMarT, plan advocated by Shlomo Benartzi from UCLA and 
Richard Thaler from the University of Chicago. These behavioral finance 
experts claim that although participants in this plan may start saving 
at a lower rate--3.5 percent--than the average, within 4 years 
increases averaged 13.6 percent--a greater than 10 percent increase. 
Compared to the control group saving rate of slightly more than 8 
percent of their compensation, the end result is quite extraordinary.
  To encourage employers to make these two changes to the plan, the 
legislation creates a new safe harbor that, if all the criteria are 
met, treats the plan as being nondiscriminatory. In order to qualify 
for the safe harbor, the employer must provide either a nonelective 
match of 3 percent of the employee's compensation or an elective match 
of 50 percent of the first 7 percent of the employee's compensation. 
These criteria can be met also if the employer contributes a comparable 
amount to another qualified plan for the same employees. The employer 
must also allow its contributions to vest in either 2 years, if the 
employer enrolls the employees in its pension plan before the 
employees' first paycheck, or in 1 year if the employer enrolls the 
employees within the first quarter of being hired. It is important to 
note that both of these vesting periods are shorter than current law 
allows and are comparable to what employers can do under the existing 
safe harbor.
  Finally, in an effort to help ensure employees are invested wisely, 
the legislation directs the Department of Labor to provide guidance for 
employers in selecting ``default'' investments so that employers have 
options besides money market accounts and investment contracts. A 
default investment is the investment that is made when

[[Page S4119]]

employees fail to indicate how they would like their retirement savings 
invested. Due to liability concerns, retirement plans tend to invest 
these funds in either investment contracts or money market accounts. 
The benefit of compounding interest that would occur with even modest 
returns in broad-based funds that have an equity component is lost. 
This guidance will not allow employers to make default investment 
decisions that are risky or put the employee's retirement at risk. It 
is important to note that the employee always retains the ability to 
invest the funds differently in other investment options offered by the 
plan if they do not like the default investment offered by the 
employer.
  I thank all of those who have done considerable research into the 
impact of human behavior on savings, which was quite instrumental to 
the drafting of this legislation. I look forward to continuing to work 
with them and others interested in this new approach to addressing our 
Nation's savings problems.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.

                                 S. 875

       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 ``Save More for Retirement Act 
     of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. INCREASING PARTICIPATION IN CASH OR DEFERRED PLANS 
                   THROUGH AUTOMATIC CONTRIBUTION ARRANGEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to cash or deferred arrangement) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(13) Nondiscrimination requirements for automatic 
     contribution trusts.--
       ``(A) In general.--A cash or deferred arrangement shall be 
     treated as meeting the requirements of paragraph (3)(A)(ii) 
     if such arrangement constitutes an automatic contribution 
     trust.
       ``(B) Automatic contribution trust.--
       ``(i) In general.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term 
     `automatic contribution trust' means an arrangement--

       ``(I) except as provided in clauses (ii) and (iii), under 
     which each employee eligible to participate in the 
     arrangement is treated as having elected to have the employer 
     make elective contributions in an amount equal to the 
     applicable percentage of the employee's compensation, and
       ``(II) which meets the requirements of subparagraphs (C), 
     (D), (E), and (F).

       ``(ii) Exception for existing employees.--In the case of 
     any employee--

       ``(I) who was eligible to participate in the arrangement 
     (or a predecessor arrangement) immediately before the first 
     date on which the arrangement is an automatic contribution 
     trust, and
       ``(II) whose rate of contribution immediately before such 
     first date was less than the applicable percentage for the 
     employee,

     clause (i)(I) shall not apply to such employee until the date 
     which is 1 year after such first date (or such earlier date 
     as the employee may elect).
       ``(iii) Election out.--Each employee eligible to 
     participate in the arrangement may specifically elect not to 
     have contributions made under clause (i), and such clause 
     shall cease to apply to compensation paid on or after the 
     effective date of the election.
       ``(iv) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of this 
     subparagraph--

       ``(I) In general.--The term `applicable percentage' means, 
     with respect to any employee, the percentage (not less than 3 
     percent) determined under the arrangement.
       ``(II) Increase in percentage.--In the case of the second 
     plan year beginning after the first date on which the 
     election under clause (i)(I) is in effect with respect to the 
     employee and any succeeding plan year, the applicable 
     percentage shall be a percentage (not greater than 10 percent 
     or such higher percentage specified by the plan) equal to the 
     sum of the applicable percentage for the employee as of the 
     close of the preceding plan year plus 1 percentage point (or 
     such higher percentage specified by the plan). A plan may 
     elect to provide that, in lieu of any increase under the 
     preceding sentence, the increase in the applicable percentage 
     required under this subclause shall occur after each increase 
     in compensation an employee receives on or after the first 
     day of such second plan year and that the applicable 
     percentage after each such increase in compensation shall be 
     equal to the applicable percentage for the employee 
     immediately before such increase in compensation plus 1 
     percentage point (or such higher percentage specified by the 
     plan).

       ``(C) Matching or nonelective contributions.--
       ``(i) In general.--The requirements of this subparagraph 
     are met if, under the arrangement, the employer--

       ``(I) makes matching contributions on behalf of each 
     employee who is not a highly compensated employee in an 
     amount equal to 50 percent of the elective contributions of 
     the employee to the extent such elective contributions do not 
     exceed 7 percent of compensation; or
       ``(II) is required, without regard to whether the employee 
     makes an elective contribution or employee contribution, to 
     make a contribution to a defined contribution plan on behalf 
     of each employee who is not a highly compensated employee and 
     who is eligible to participate in the arrangement in an 
     amount equal to at least 3 percent of the employee's 
     compensation,

     The rules of clauses (ii) and (iii) of paragraph (12)(B) 
     shall apply for purposes of subclause (I). The rules of 
     paragraph (12)(E)(ii) shall apply for purposes of subclauses 
     (I) and (II).
       ``(ii) Other plans.--An arrangement shall be treated as 
     meeting the requirements under clause (i) if any other plan 
     maintained by the employer meets such requirements with 
     respect to employees eligible under the arrangement.
       ``(D) Notice requirements.--
       ``(i) In general.--The requirements of this subparagraph 
     are met if the requirements of clauses (ii) and (iii) are 
     met.
       ``(ii) Reasonable period to make election.--The 
     requirements of this clause are met if each employee to whom 
     subparagraph (B)(i) applies--

       ``(I) receives a notice explaining the employee's right 
     under the arrangement to elect not to have elective 
     contributions made on the employee's behalf, and how 
     contributions made under the arrangement will be invested in 
     the absence of any investment election by the employee, and
       ``(II) has a reasonable period of time after receipt of 
     such notice and before the first elective contribution is 
     made to make such election.

       ``(iii) Annual notice of rights and obligations.--The 
     requirements of this clause are met if each employee eligible 
     to participate in the arrangement is, within a reasonable 
     period before any year (or if the plan elects to change the 
     applicable percentage after any increase in compensation, 
     before the increase), given notice of the employee's rights 
     and obligations under the arrangement.
     The requirements of clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (12)(D) 
     shall be met with respect to the notices described in clauses 
     (ii) and (iii) of this subparagraph.
       ``(E) Participation, withdrawal, and vesting 
     requirements.--The requirements of this subparagraph are met 
     if--
       ``(i) the arrangement requires that each employee eligible 
     to participate in the arrangement (determined without regard 
     to any minimum service requirement otherwise applicable under 
     section 410(a) or the plan) commences participation in the 
     arrangement no later than the 1st day of the 1st calendar 
     quarter following the date on which employee first becomes so 
     eligible,
       ``(ii) the withdrawal requirements of paragraph (2)(B) are 
     met with respect to all employer contributions (including 
     matching and elective contributions) taken into account in 
     determining whether the arrangement meets the requirements of 
     subparagraph (C), and
       ``(iii) the arrangement requires that an employee's right 
     to the accrued benefit derived from employer contributions 
     described in clause (ii) (other than elective contributions) 
     is nonforfeitable after the employee has completed--

       ``(I) at least 1 year of service, or
       ``(II) in the case of an employee who is eligible to 
     participate in the arrangement as of the first day on which 
     the employee begins employment with the employer maintaining 
     the arrangement, at least 2 years of service.

       ``(F) Certain withdrawals must be allowed.--
       ``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this subsection, the requirements of this subparagraph are 
     met if the arrangement allows employees to elect to withdraw 
     elective contributions described in subparagraph (B)(i) (and 
     earnings attributable thereto) from the cash or deferred 
     arrangement in accordance with the provisions of this 
     subparagraph.
       ``(ii) Time for making election.--Clause (i) shall not 
     apply to an election by an employee unless the election is 
     made no later than the close of the latest of the following 
     payroll periods occurring after the first payroll period to 
     which the automatic enrollment system applies to the 
     employee:

       ``(I) The payroll period in which the aggregate elective 
     contributions made under subparagraph (B)(i) first exceed 
     $500.
       ``(II) The second payroll period following such first 
     payroll period.
       ``(III) The first payroll period which begins at least one 
     month after the close of the first payroll period to which 
     the automatic enrollment system applies.

       ``(iii) Amount of distribution.--Clause (i) shall not apply 
     to any election by an employee unless the amount of any 
     distribution by reason of the election is equal to the amount 
     of elective contributions made with respect to the first 
     payroll period to which the automatic enrollment system 
     applies to the employee and any succeeding payroll period 
     beginning before the effective date of the election (and 
     earnings attributable thereto).
       ``(iv) Treatment of distribution.--In the case of any 
     distribution to an employee pursuant to an election under 
     clause (i)--

       ``(I) the amount of such distribution shall be includible 
     in the gross income of the employee for the taxable year of 
     the employee in which the distribution is made, and
       ``(II) no tax shall be imposed under section 72(t) with 
     respect to the distribution.

[[Page S4120]]

       ``(v) Employer matching contributions.--In the case of any 
     distribution to an employee by reason of an election under 
     clause (i), employer matching contributions shall be 
     forfeited or subject to such other treatment as the Secretary 
     may prescribe.''
       (b) Matching Contributions.--Section 401(m) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to nondiscrimination test for 
     matching contributions and employee contributions) is amended 
     by redesignating paragraph (12) as paragraph (13) and by 
     inserting after paragraph (11) the following new paragraph:
       ``(12) Alternate method for automatic contribution 
     trusts.--A defined contribution plan shall be treated as 
     meeting the requirements of paragraph (2) with respect to 
     matching contributions if the plan--
       ``(A) meets the contribution requirements of subparagraphs 
     (B)(i) and (C) of subsection (k)(13);
       ``(B) meets the notice requirements of subparagraph (D) of 
     subsection (k)(13); and
       ``(C) meets the requirements of paragraph (11)(B) (ii) and 
     (iii).''.
       (c) Exclusion From Definition of Top-Heavy Plans.--
       (1) Elective contribution rule.--Clause (i) of section 
     416(g)(4)(H) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended 
     by inserting ``or 401(k)(13)'' after ``section 401(k)(12)''.
       (2) Matching contribution rule.--Clause (ii) of section 
     416(g)(4)(H) of such Code is amended by inserting ``or 
     401(m)(12)'' after ``section 401(m)(11)''.
       (d) Definition of Compensation.--
       (1) Base pay or rate of pay.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall, no later than December 31, 2006, modify Treasury 
     Regulation section 1.414(s)-1(d)(3) to facilitate the use of 
     the safe harbors in sections 401(k)(12), 401(k)(13), 
     401(m)(11), and 401(m)(12) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986, and in Treasury Regulation section 1.401(a)(4)-3(b), by 
     plans that use base pay or rate of pay in determining 
     contributions or benefits. Such modifications shall include 
     increased flexibility in satisfying section 414(s) of such 
     Code in any case where the amount of overtime compensation 
     payable in a year can vary significantly.
       (2) Application of requirements to separate payroll 
     periods.--Not later than December 31, 2006, the Secretary of 
     the Treasury shall issue rules under subparagraphs (B)(i) and 
     (C)(i) of section 401(k)(13) of such Code and under clause 
     (i) of section 401(m)(12)(A) of such Code that, effective for 
     plan years beginning after December 31, 2006, permit such 
     requirements to be applied separately to separate payroll 
     periods based on rules similar to the rules described in 
     Treasury Regulation sections 1.401(k)-3(c)(5)(ii) and 
     1.401(m)-3(d)(4).
       (e) Section 403(b) Contracts.--Paragraph (11) of section 
     401(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Section 403(b) contracts.--An annuity contract under 
     section 403(b) shall be treated as meeting the requirements 
     of paragraph (2) with respect to matching contributions if 
     such contract meets requirements similar to the requirements 
     under subparagraph (A).''.
       (f) Preemption of Conflicting State Regulation.--Section 
     514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security of 1974 (29 
     U.S.C. 1144) is amended by inserting at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(e) Automatic Contribution Arrangements.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this section, any law of a State shall be superseded if it 
     would directly or indirectly prohibit or restrict the 
     inclusion in any plan of an eligible automatic contribution 
     arrangement.
       ``(2) Eligible automatic contribution arrangement.--For 
     purposes of this subsection, the term `eligible automatic 
     contribution arrangement' means an arrangement--
       ``(A) under which a participant may elect to have the 
     employer make payments as contributions under the plan on 
     behalf of the participant, or to the participant directly in 
     cash,
       ``(B) under which the participant is treated as having 
     elected to have the employer make such contributions in an 
     amount equal to a uniform percentage of compensation provided 
     under the plan until the participant specifically elects not 
     to have such contributions made (or specifically elects to 
     have such contributions made at a different percentage),
       ``(C) under which contributions described in subparagraph 
     (B) are invested in accordance with regulations prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 404(c)(4), and
       ``(D) which meets the requirements of paragraph (3).
       ``(3) Notice requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--The administrator of an individual 
     account plan shall, within a reasonable period before each 
     plan year, give to each employee to whom an arrangement 
     described in paragraph (2) applies for such plan year notice 
     of the employee's rights and obligations under the 
     arrangement which--
       ``(i) is sufficiently accurate and comprehensive to apprise 
     the employee of such rights and obligations, and
       ``(ii) is written in a manner calculated to be understood 
     by the average employee to whom the arrangement applies.
       ``(B) Time and form of notice.--A notice shall not be 
     treated as meeting the requirements of subparagraph (A) with 
     respect to an employee unless--
       ``(i) the notice includes a notice explaining the 
     employee's right under the arrangement to elect not to have 
     elective contributions made on the employee's behalf (or to 
     elect to have such contributions made at a different 
     percentage),
       ``(ii) the employee has a reasonable period of time after 
     receipt of the notice described in clause (i) and before the 
     first elective contribution is made to make such election, 
     and
       ``(iii) the notice explains how contributions made under 
     the arrangement will be invested in the absence of any 
     investment election by the employee.''.
       (g) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided by paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to plan years 
     beginning after December 31, 2005.
       (2) Section 403(b) contracts.--The amendments made by 
     subsection (e) shall apply to years ending after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. TREATMENT OF INVESTMENT OF ASSETS BY PLAN WHERE 
                   PARTICIPANT FAILS TO EXERCISE INVESTMENT 
                   ELECTION.

       (a) In General.--Section 404(c) of the Employee Retirement 
     Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1104(c)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Default investment arrangements.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1), a 
     participant in an individual account plan meeting the notice 
     requirements of subparagraph (B) shall be treated as 
     exercising control over the assets in the account with 
     respect to the amount of contributions and earnings which, in 
     the absence of an investment election by the participant, are 
     invested by the plan in accordance with regulations 
     prescribed by the Secretary. The regulations under this 
     subparagraph shall provide guidance on the appropriateness of 
     designating default investments that include a mix of asset 
     classes consistent with long-term capital appreciation.
       ``(B) Notice requirements.--
       ``(i) In general.--The requirements of this subparagraph 
     are met if each participant--

       ``(I) receives, within a reasonable period of time before 
     each plan year, a notice explaining the employee's right 
     under the plan to designate how contributions and earnings 
     will be invested and explaining how, in the absence of any 
     investment election by the participant, such contributions 
     and earnings will be invested, and
       ``(II) has a reasonable period of time after receipt of 
     such notice and before the beginning of the plan year to make 
     such designation.

       ``(ii) Form of notice.--The requirements of clauses (i) and 
     (ii) of section 401(k)(12)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 shall be met with respect to the notices described in 
     this subparagraph.''
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     apply to plan years beginning after December 31, 2005.
       (2) Regulations.--Final regulations under section 
     404(c)(4)(A) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
     of 1974 (as added by this section) shall be issued no later 
     than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Specter, Mr. 
        Kennedy, and Mr. Harkin):
  S. 876. A bill to prohibit human cloning and protect stem cell 
research; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with Senators 
Feinstein, Specter, Kennedy, and Harkin to introduce the Human Cloning 
Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act of 2005. This bill could help 
usher in the next great era of medical treatment. At the same time, it 
will criminalize the offensive practice of reproductive cloning.
  If you remember when Jonas Salk discovered the polio vaccine, you 
will recall what a revolutionary step that was, to be able to stop 
ravaging diseases before they hit their victims. It led to a whole new 
way of practicing medicine and paved the way for the vaccines and 
treatments that we take for granted today.
  I believe we are on the verge of a similar step, a new generation in 
medical research and treatment, thanks to the incredible potential of 
stem cells. Stem cell research--particularly, embryonic stem cell 
research--holds great promise. To quote Nobel Laureate Dr. Harold 
Varmus, ``The development of cell lines that may produce almost every 
tissue of the human body is an unprecedented scientific breakthrough. 
It is not too unrealistic to say that this research has the potential 
to revolutionize the practice of medicine and improve the quality and 
length of life.''
  As Dr. Varmus noted, embryonic stem cells appear to have the amazing 
potential to transform themselves into any of the more than 200 types 
of cells that form the human body. These cells

[[Page S4121]]

could be the key to understanding much about human health and disease 
and may yield new diagnostic tests, treatments, and cures for diseases 
such as diabetes, cancer, heart disease, Parkinson's, autoimmune 
diseases, and many, many others.
  Stem cell research could potentially be the scientific advance that 
takes the practice of medicine not just to the next level, but to five 
or ten levels above and beyond. Like my colleagues, I believe there is 
an urgent need for uniformity in the rules governing stem cell research 
in America. But let me just stress one aspect of that need: ethics. 
Without the National Institutes of Health setting the ethical 
guidelines for stem cell research, we invite a host of problems. Most 
of us feel strongly that human reproductive cloning is wrong, for 
example. But where should the lines be drawn with regard to embryonic 
stem cell research--particularly, somatic cell nuclear transfer and the 
use of cell lines derived from IVF embryos?
  The NIH is the obvious and crucial choice to help set the ethical 
boundaries. Our bill will ban outright any attempt at bringing to life 
a cloned human being. It will also prohibit research on any embryo 
created through somatic cell nuclear transfer beyond 14 days, require 
informed consent of donors, prohibit profiteering from donated eggs, 
and mandate separation of the egg collection site from the research 
laboratory.
  The NIH will help determine other suitable ethical guidelines in 
allowing this critical research to go forward with Federal funding and 
at federally-funded institutions. There is no question in my mind that, 
when they do, the rest of the world will follow.
  Now, the last time we introduced this bill, there was interest in the 
fact that I, as a strongly pro-life senator, would be the lead sponsor. 
I think we have put that issue behind us, as more pro-life lawmakers 
have expressed their support for this research. The fact is, I have 
never believed that life begins in a Petri dish. And as I travel across 
my home State of Utah, more and more Utahns, whether they are pro-life 
or not, come up to me and say, ``Orrin, we're with you on this. You're 
doing the right thing.''
  That support is building across the country, and we must act. If we 
do not seize this opportunity, other countries could take the leading 
role in medicine's next great advance. We will lose the chance to set 
ethical guidelines, we will lose doctors to overseas research 
institutions, and most importantly, we will lose the chance to offer 
new hope to American and other patients who are waiting in desperation 
for treatments and cures.
  I urge the Senate to take up and pass this bill, and I look forward 
to the work ahead.
  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. 876

       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 ``Human Cloning Ban and Stem 
     Cell Research Protection Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       It is the purpose of this Act to prohibit human cloning and 
     to protect important areas of medical research, including 
     stem cell research.

                 TITLE I--PROHIBITION ON HUMAN CLONING

     SEC. 101. PROHIBITION ON HUMAN CLONING.

       (a) In General.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting after chapter 15, the following:


               ``CHAPTER 16--PROHIBITION ON HUMAN CLONING

       ``301. Prohibition on human cloning

     ``Sec. 301. Prohibition on human cloning

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Human cloning.--The term `human cloning' means 
     implanting or attempting to implant the product of nuclear 
     transplantation into a uterus or the functional equivalent of 
     a uterus.
       ``(2) Human somatic cell.--The term `human somatic cell' 
     means any human cell other than a haploid germ cell.
       ``(3) Nuclear transplantation.--The term `nuclear 
     transplantation' means transferring the nucleus of a human 
     somatic cell into an oocyte from which the nucleus or all 
     chromosomes have been or will be removed or rendered inert.
       ``(4) Nucleus.--The term `nucleus' means the cell structure 
     that houses the chromosomes.
       ``(5) Oocyte.--The term `oocyte' means the female germ 
     cell, the egg.
       ``(6) Unfertilized blastocyst.--The term `unfertilized 
     blastocyst' means an intact cellular structure that is the 
     product of nuclear transplantation. Such term shall not 
     include stem cells, other cells, cellular structures, or 
     biological products derived from an intact cellular structure 
     that is the product of nuclear transplantation.
       ``(b) Prohibitions on Human Cloning.--It shall be unlawful 
     for any person or other legal entity, public or private--
       ``(1) to conduct or attempt to conduct human cloning;
       ``(2) to ship the product of nuclear transplantation in 
     interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of human 
     cloning in the United States or elsewhere; or
       ``(3) to export to a foreign country an unfertilized 
     blastocyst if such country does not prohibit human cloning.
       ``(c) Protection of research.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to restrict practices not expressly 
     prohibited in this section.
       ``(d) Penalties.--
       ``(1) Criminal penalties.--Whoever intentionally violates 
     paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subsection (b) shall be fined 
     under this title and imprisoned not more than 10 years.
       ``(2) Civil penalties.--Whoever intentionally violates 
     paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subsection (b) shall be subject 
     to a civil penalty of $1,000,000 or three times the gross 
     pecuniary gain resulting from the violation, whichever is 
     greater.
       ``(3) Forfeiture.--Any property, real or personal, derived 
     from or used to commit a violation or attempted violation of 
     the provisions of subsection (b), or any property traceable 
     to such property, shall be subject to forfeiture to the 
     United States in accordance with the procedures set forth in 
     chapter 46 of title 18, United States Code.
       ``(e) Right of Action.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to give any individual or person a private right of 
     action.''.

     SEC. 102. OVERSIGHT REPORTS ON ACTIONS TO ENFORCE CERTAIN 
                   PROHIBITIONS.

       (a) Report on Actions by Attorney General to Enforce 
     Chapter 16 of Title 18.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall 
     prepare and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the 
     Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives a report that--
       (1) describes the actions taken by the Attorney General to 
     enforce the provisions of chapter 16 of title 18, United 
     States Code (as added by section 101);
       (2) describes the personnel and resources the Attorney 
     General has utilized to enforce the provisions of such 
     chapter; and
       (3) contain a list of any violations, if any, of the 
     provisions of such chapter 16.
       (b) Report on Actions of State Attorneys General to Enforce 
     Similar State Laws.--
       (1) Definition.--In this subsection and subsection (c), the 
     term ``similar State law relating to human cloning'' means a 
     State or local law that provides for the imposition of 
     criminal penalties on individuals who are determined to be 
     conducting or attempting to conduct human cloning (as defined 
     in section 301 of title 18, United States Code (as added by 
     section 101)).
       (2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall prepare 
     and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate 
     and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives a report that--
       (A) describes any similar State law relating to human 
     cloning;
       (B) describes the actions taken by the State attorneys 
     general to enforce the provisions of any similar State law 
     relating to human cloning;
       (C) contains a list of violations, if any, of the 
     provisions of any similar State law relating to human 
     cloning; and
       (D) contains a list of any individual who, or organization 
     that, has violated, or has been charged with violating, any 
     similar State law relating to human cloning.
       (c) Report on Coordination of Enforcement Actions Among the 
     Federal and State and Local Governments With Respect to Human 
     Cloning.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Comptroller General shall prepare and submit 
     to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the 
     Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a 
     report that
       (1) describes how the Attorney General coordinates the 
     enforcement of violations of chapter 16 of title 18, United 
     States Code (as added by section 101), with enforcement 
     actions taken by State or local government law enforcement 
     officials with respect to similar State laws relating to 
     human cloning; and
       (2) describes the status and disposition of--
       (A) Federal appellate litigation with respect to such 
     chapter 16 and State appellate litigation with respect to 
     similar State laws relating to human cloning; and
       (B) civil litigation, including actions to appoint 
     guardians, related to human cloning.
       (d) Report on International Laws Relating to Human 
     Cloning.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Comptroller General shall prepare and submit 
     to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the 
     Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a 
     report that--

[[Page S4122]]

       (1) describes the laws adopted by foreign countries related 
     to human cloning;
       (2) describes the actions taken by the chief law 
     enforcement officer in each foreign country that has enacted 
     a law described in paragraph (1) to enforce such law; and
       (3) describes the multilateral efforts of the United 
     Nations and elsewhere to ban human cloning.

  TITLE II--ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR NUCLEAR TRANSPLANTATION RESEARCH

     SEC. 201. ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR NUCLEAR TRANSPLANTATION 
                   RESEARCH.

       Title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 281 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:


  ``part J--ethical REQUIREMENTS FOR NUCLEAR TRANSPLANTATION RESEARCH

     ``SEC. 499A. ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR NUCLEAR TRANSPLANTATION 
                   RESEARCH, INCLUDING INFORMED CONSENT, 
                   INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD REVIEW, AND 
                   PROTECTION FOR SAFETY AND PRIVACY.

       ``(a) Definitions.--
       ``(1) In general.--The definitions contained in section 
     301(a) of title 18, United States Code, shall apply for 
     purposes of this section.
       ``(2) Other definitions.--In this section:
       ``(A) Donating.--The term `donating' means giving without 
     receiving valuable consideration.
       ``(B) Fertilization.--The term `fertilization' means the 
     fusion of an oocyte containing a haploid nucleus with a male 
     gamete (sperm cell).
       ``(C) Valuable consideration.--The term `valuable 
     consideration' does not include reasonable payments--
       ``(i) associated with the transportation, processing, 
     preservation, or storage of a human oocyte or of the product 
     of nuclear transplantation research; or
       ``(ii) to compensate a donor of one or more human oocytes 
     for the time or inconvenience associated with such donation.
       ``(b) Applicability of Federal Ethical Standards to Nuclear 
     Transplantation Research.--Research involving nuclear 
     transplantation shall be conducted in accordance with subpart 
     A of part 46 of title 45, or parts 50 and 56 of title 21, 
     Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of 
     enactment of the Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research 
     Protection Act of 2003), as applicable:
       ``(c) Prohibition on Conducting Nuclear Transplantation on 
     Fertilized Eggs.--A somatic cell nucleus shall not be 
     transplanted into a human oocyte that has undergone or will 
     undergo fertilization.
       ``(d) Fourteen-Day Rule.--An unfertilized blastocyst shall 
     not be maintained after more than 14 days from its first cell 
     division, not counting any time during which it is stored at 
     temperatures less than zero degrees centigrade.
       ``(e) Voluntary Donation of Oocytes.--
       ``(1) Informed consent.--In accordance with subsection (b), 
     an oocyte may not be used in nuclear transplantation research 
     unless such oocyte shall have been donated voluntarily by and 
     with the informed consent of the woman donating the oocyte.
       ``(2) Prohibition on purchase or sale.--No human oocyte or 
     unfertilized blastocyst may be acquired, received, or 
     otherwise transferred for valuable consideration if the 
     transfer affects interstate commerce.
       ``(f) Separation of In Vitro Fertilization Laboratories 
     From Locations at Which Nuclear Transplantation Is 
     Conducted.--Nuclear transplantation may not be conducted in a 
     laboratory in which human oocytes are subject to assisted 
     reproductive technology treatments or procedures.
       ``(g) Civil Penalties.--Whoever intentionally violates any 
     provision of subsections (b) through (f) shall be subject to 
     a civil penalty in an amount that is appropriate for the 
     violation involved, but not more than $250,000.''.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today Senators Hatch, Kennedy, 
Specter, Harkin and I are introducing legislation to ban human 
reproductive cloning, while ensuring that important medical research 
goes forward under strict oversight by the federal government.
  Simply put, this legislation will enable research to be conducted 
that provides hope to millions of Americans suffering from paralysis 
and debilitating diseases including Juvenile Diabetes, Parkinson's, 
Alzheimer's, cancer and heart disease.
  Every member of this body knows someone--whether it's a parent or 
grandparent, a child or a friend--who suffers from one of these 
diseases. That is why this legislation is so critical. We must act now 
to protect promising research that will bring hope to those who suffer.
  I now that every member of this body would agree that human 
reproductive cloning is immoral and unethical. It should be outlawed by 
Congress and the President. That is exactly what this bill does.
  It prohibits any person from conducting or attempting to clone a 
human being. It also prohibits shipping materials for the purpose of 
human cloning in interstate or foreign commerce and prohibits the 
export of an unfertilized blastocyst to a foreign country if such 
country does not prohibit human cloning.
  Any person that violates this prohibition is subject to harsh 
criminal and civil penalties. They include: imprisonment of up to 10 
years in federal prison.
  Fines of up to $1 million or three times the gross profits resulting 
from the violation, whichever is greater.
  This legislation draws a bright line between human reproductive 
cloning and promising medical research using somatic cell nuclear 
transplantation for the sole purpose of deriving embryonic stem cells.
  Somatic cell nuclear transplantation is the process by which 
scientists derive embryonic stem cells that are an exact genetic match 
as the patient. Those embryonic stem cells will one day be used to 
correct defective cells such as non-insulin producing or cancerous 
cells. Then those patients will not be forced to take immuno-
suppressive drugs and risk the chances of rejection since the new cells 
will contain their own DNA.
  It is truly astonishing that somatic cell nuclear transplantation 
research may one day be used to regrow tissue or organs that could lead 
to treatments and cures for diseases that afflict up to 100 million 
Americans. What we are talking about here is research that does not 
even involve sperm and an egg.
  I believe it is essential that this research be conducted with 
Federal Government oversight and under strict ethical requirements.
  That is why the legislation: Mandates that eggs used in this research 
be unfertilized.
  Prohibits the purchase or sale of unfertilized eggs--to prevent 
``embryo farms'' or the possible exploitation of women.
  Imposes strong ethics rules on scientists, mandating informed consent 
by egg donors, and include safety and privacy protections.
  Prohibit any research on an unfertilized blastocyst after 14 days--
After 14 days, an unfertilized blastocyst begins differentiating into a 
specific type of cell such as a heart or brain cell and is no longer 
useful for the purposes of embryonic stem cell research.
  Requires that all egg donations be voluntary, and that there is no 
financial or other incentive for egg donations.
  Requires that nuclear transportation occur in labs completely 
separate from labs that engage in in vitro fertilization.
  And for those who violate or attempt to violate the ethical 
requirements of the legislation, they will be subject to civil 
penalties of up to $250,000 per violation.
  Embryonic stem cell research that is currently being done using 
private funds, in animal models, and by scientists overseas continues 
to show great promise and potential. This progress will not be 
sustained in the U.S. without additional stem cell lines for federally-
funded research and without strict federal oversight of this research.
  Senator Hatch and I have argued this point for years. What has 
happened since the President limited federally-funded research to only 
those embryonic stem cell lines derived prior to August 9, 2001?
  Researchers have made a number of advancements confirming the promise 
of embryonic stem cells using animal models and private research 
dollars. In the absence of federal policy on embryonic stem cell 
research and human reproductive cloning, States have taken action 
creating a patchwork of state laws under varying ethical frameworks. 
Fewer researchers are choosing to go into this field given the void 
created by Federal inaction.
  Last January, a study published by researchers from the University of 
California San Diego and the Salk Institute for Biological Studies 
confirmed that all 22 existing federally-approved stem cell lines are 
tainted by mouse feeders cells and cannot be used in humans.
  Researchers at the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, MA, used 
embryonic stem cells created by somatic cell nuclear transplantation to 
cure a genetic defect in mice.
  Researchers at Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York found that 
embryonic stem cells produce proteins

[[Page S4123]]

that can help ailing organs repair themselves.
  Stanford scientists were able to relieve diabetes symptoms in mice by 
using special chemicals to transform undifferentiated embryonic stem 
cells of mice into cell masses that resemble islets found in the mouse 
pancreas.
  In the absence of federal legislation, we have seen a patchwork of 
State laws under varying ethical frameworks and this is extremely 
worrisome. In total, 30 States have passed laws pertaining to stem cell 
research and there is tremendous variety in those laws.
  California launched a $3 billion initiative to fund embryonic stem 
cell research including somatic cell nuclear transplantation research 
which bans human reproductive cloning.
  At least 6 academic centers in California including UC San Francisco, 
Stanford, UCLA, UC Berkeley, UC Irvine and UC Davis have already begun 
developing facilities where this embryonic stem cell research will be 
conducted and are all actively recruiting stem cell biologists from 
across the country.

  New Jersey has proposed a $380 million initiative to fund embryonic 
stem cell research.
  Wisconsin has proposed investing $750 million to support embryonic 
stem cell research.
  By contrast, Arkansas, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota and Michigan 
have specifically prohibited nuclear transfer used to create stem 
cells. And 22 other States have enacted laws on the matter.
  What this means is researchers and research money are now moving to 
States with pro-research laws and pro-research Governors.
  There is clearly a void that needs to be filled--and it can only be 
filled by the Federal Government.
  To be clear, this is research that involves an unfertilized 
blastocyst. No sperm are involved. It is conducted in a petri dish and 
cannot occur beyond 14 days. It is also prohibited from ever being 
implanted into a woman to create a child.
  For those who believe that the clump of cells in a petri dish that we 
are talking about is a human life, that is a moral decision each person 
must make for himself, but to impose that view on the more than 100 
million of our parents, children and friends who suffer from 
Parkinson's, diabetes, Alzheimer's and cancer is immoral.
  As former Senator and Episcopal minister John C. Danforth said 
recently in an op-ed in the New York Times, ``Criminalizing the work of 
scientists doing such research would give strong support to one 
religious doctrine, and it would punish people who believe it is their 
religious duty to use science to heal the sick.
  This is exactly why the legislation I am introducing with my 
colleagues Senators Hatch, Kennedy, Specter and Harkin is needed. I 
urge the Senate to take up and pass this bill and help turn the hopes 
of millions of Americans into reality.
  I ask unanimous consent that the attached letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                     Coalition for the Advancement


                                          of Medical Research,

                                   Washington, DC, April 21, 2005.
     Senator Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate, 331 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein, On behalf of the Coalition for the 
     Advancement of Medical Research (CAMR), I am writing to add 
     our strong support for the introduction of the Human Cloning 
     Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act of 2005. Along with 
     Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), 
     Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), and Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), 
     your leadership in protecting research using somatic cell 
     nuclear transfer (SCNT), also known as therapeutic cloning, 
     is greatly appreciated.
       This year, Congress will address the future of biomedical 
     research and the Nation's efforts to prevent, treat, and cure 
     such debilitating diseases as cancer, juvenile diabetes, ALS, 
     Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries and many more. Let 
     me be clear, CAMR supports a ban on reproductive cloning; it 
     is unsafe and unethical. Given the scientific potential of 
     SCNT and regenerative medicine, however, we strongly support 
     the bill's effort to allow for this research, which may 
     provide essential tools allowing scientists to develop the 
     promise of embryonic stern cell research. I am sure you will 
     agree, therapeutic cloning is about saving and improving 
     lives. It is fW1damemally different from human reproductive 
     cloning; it produces stem cells, not babies.
       CAMR applauds your leadership in sponsoring legislation 
     that ensures cures for devastating diseases continue to be 
     developed. We look forward to working with you.
           Thank you,
                                                     Daniel Perry,
                                                        President.
  Mr. KENNEDY. It is a privilege to join Senator Hatch, Senator 
Feinstein, Senator Specter and Senator Harkin in sponsoring the Human 
Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act of 2005. This 
bipartisan proposal will outlaw human cloning and open the way to 
proper, ethical cures for our most feared diseases.
  Using cloning to reproduce a child is improper and immoral--and our 
legislation will make it illegal. Medicine must advance hand in hand 
with ethics, and the legislation we introduce today will make certain 
that American research sets the gold standard for ethical oversight.
  But it is wrong to deny the great potential of medical research using 
the remarkable new techniques of stem cell research, which can save 
lives by preventing, treating, and curing a wide range of severe 
diseases and disabilities.
  We see the benefits of investment in biotechnology all around us. 
Fifty years ago last week, Jonas Salk announced the first polio 
vaccine. Imagine a world without that extraordinary discovery--where 
peoples everywhere lived in fear of the polio virus and the devastation 
it brings.
  Thirty years ago, Congress was considering whether to ban research on 
recombinant DNA--the very foundation of biotechnology.
  Time after time, we heard of the medical advances that this new field 
of research would bring. Then--as now--some dismissed this promise as a 
pipe dream and urged Congress to forbid it. We chose instead to vote 
for new hope and new cures. Today, countless Americans and persons 
throughout the world are already benefiting from the new treatments 
that biotechnology has brought. Why call a halt?
  In the 1980s Congress made the right choice, again, by rejecting 
attempts to outlaw in vitro fertilization, a technique that has 
fulfilled the hopes and dreams of thousands of parents who would never 
have been able to have a child.
  Our debate today is no different and Congress should do all it can to 
support lifesaving research, not prohibit it.
  Other nations are more than willing to leave us behind. The potential 
of this research is so immense that some of our best scientists are 
already leaving America to pursue their dreams in research laboratories 
in other countries. We need to stop that exodus before it becomes a 
nightmare. Do we really want to wake up 10 years from now and hear that 
a former American scientist in another land has won the Nobel Prize in 
medicine for a landmark discovery in stem cell research?
  The misguided fears of today can't be allowed to deny the cures of 
tomorrow. I commend my colleagues for their leadership on this 
important legislation, and I hope the Senate will act quickly to 
approve this urgently needed bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Frist, Mr. 
        Lugar, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Crapo, Mr. 
        Alexander, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Allard, and Mr. 
        Corzine):
  S. 877. A bill to provide for a biennial budget process and a 
biennial appropriations process and to enhance oversight and the 
performance of the Federal Government; to the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Lieberman, the 
distinguished Ranking Member of the Governmental Affairs Committee and 
eleven other Senators, I rise to introduce the ``Biennial Budgeting and 
Appropriations Act,'' a bill to convert the annual budget and 
appropriations process to a two-year cycle and to enhance oversight of 
federal programs.
  Our most recent experience with the Omnibus Consolidated 
Appropriations Act shows the need for a biennial appropriations and 
budget process. That one bill clearly demonstrated Congress is 
incapable of completing the budget, authorizing, and appropriations 
process on an annual basis. That 1,000 plus paged bill contained nine 
of the regular appropriations bills.
  Congress should now act to streamline the system by moving to a two-

[[Page S4124]]

year, or biennial, budget process. This is the most important reform we 
can enact to streamline the budget process, to make the Senate a more 
deliberative and effective institution, and to make us more accountable 
to the American people.
  Moving to a biennial budget and appropriations process enjoys very 
broad support. President Bush has supported a biennial budgeting 
process. Presidents Clinton, Reagan and Bush also proposed a biennial 
appropriations and budget cycle. Leon Panetta, who served as White 
House Chief of Staff, OMB Director, and House Budget Committee 
Chairman, has advocated a biennial budget since the late 1970s. Former 
OMB and CBO Director Alice Rivlin has called for a biennial budget the 
past two decades. The Majority Leader is a co-sponsor of this 
legislation.
  Vice President Gore's National Performance Review and the 1993 Joint 
Committee on the Reorganization of Congress both recommended a biennial 
appropriations and budget cycle.
  A biennial budget will dramatically improve the current budget 
process. The current annual budget process is redundant, inefficient, 
and destined for failure each year. Look at what we struggle to 
complete each year under the current annual process. The annual budget 
process consumes three years: one year for the Administration to 
prepare the President's budget, another year for the Congress to put 
the budget into law, and the final year to actually execute the budget.
  Today, I want to focus just on the Congressional budget process, the 
process of annually passing a budget resolution, authorization 
legislation, and multiple appropriation bills. The record clearly shows 
that last year's experience was nothing new. Under the annual process, 
we consistently fail to complete action on multiple appropriations 
bills, to authorize programs, and to meet our deadlines.
  While we have made a number of improvements in the budget process, 
the current annual process is redundant and inefficient. The Senate has 
the same debate, amendments and votes on the same issue three or four 
times a year--once on the budget resolution, again on the authorization 
bill, and finally on the appropriations bill.
  A few years ago, I asked the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to 
update and expand upon an analysis of the amount of time we spend on 
the budget. CRS looked at all votes on appropriations, revenue, 
reconciliation, and debt limit measures as well as budget resolutions. 
CRS then examined any other vote dealing with budgetary levels, Budget 
Act waivers, or votes pertaining to the budget process. Beginning with 
1980, budget related votes started dominating the work of the Senate. 
In 1996, 73 percent of the votes the Senate took were related to the 
budget.
  If we cannot adequately focus on our duties because we are constantly 
debating the budget throughout the authorizing, budgeting, and 
appropriations process, just imagine how confused the American public 
is about what we are doing. The result is that the public does not 
understand what we are doing and it breeds cynicism about our 
government.
  Under the legislation I am introducing today, the President would 
submit a 2-year budget and Congress would consider a 2-year budget 
resolution and 2-year appropriation bills during the first session of a 
Congress. The second session of the Congress would be devoted to 
consideration of authorization bills and for oversight of government 
agencies.
  Most of the arguments against a biennial budget process will come 
from those who claim we cannot predict or plan on a two year basis. For 
most of the budget, we do not actually budget on an annual basis. Our 
entitlement and revenue laws are under permanent law and Congress does 
not change these laws on an annual basis. The only component of the 
budget that is set in law annually are the appropriated, or 
discretionary, accounts.
  The most predictable category of the budget are these appropriated, 
or discretionary, accounts of the federal government. Much of this 
spending is associated with international activities or emergencies. 
Because most of this funding cannot be predicted on an annual basis, a 
biennial budget is no less deficient than the current annual process. 
My bill does not preclude supplemental appropriations necessary to meet 
these emergency or unanticipated requirements.
  In 1993 I had the honor to serve as co-Chairman on a Joint Committee 
that studied the operations of the Congress. Senator Byrd testified 
before that Committee that the increasing demands put on us as Senators 
has led to our ``fractured attention.'' We simply are too busy to 
adequately focus on the people's business. This legislation is designed 
to free up time and focus our attention, particularly with respect to 
the oversight of Federal programs and activities.
  Frankly, the limited oversight we are now doing is not as good as it 
should be. Our authorizing committees are increasingly crowded out of 
the legislative process. Under a biennial budget, the second year of 
the biennium will be exclusively devoted to examining federal programs 
and developing authorization legislation. The calendar will be free of 
the budget and appropriations process, giving these committees the time 
and opportunity to provide oversight, review and legislate changes to 
federal programs. Oversight and the authorization should be an ongoing 
process, but a biennial appropriations process will provide greater 
opportunity for legislators to concentrate on programs and policies in 
the second year.
  Mr. President, a biennial budget cannot make the difficult decisions 
that must be made in budgeting, but it can provide the tools necessary 
to make much better decisions. Under the current annual budget process 
we are constantly spending the taxpayers' money instead of focusing on 
how best and most efficiently we should spend the taxpayers' money. By 
moving to a biennial budget cycle, we can plan, budget, and appropriate 
more effectively, strengthen oversight and watchdog functions, and 
improve the efficiency of government agencies.
  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. 877

       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 ``Biennial Budgeting and 
     Appropriations Act''.

     SEC. 2. REVISION OF TIMETABLE.

       Section 300 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 
     U.S.C. 631) is amended to read as follows:


                              ``timetable

       ``Sec. 300. (a) In General.--Except as provided by 
     subsection (b), the timetable with respect to the 
     congressional budget process for any Congress (beginning with 
     the One Hundred Tenth Congress) is as follows:

       

                             ``First Session
``On or before:                             Action to be completed:
 
First Monday in February..................  President submits budget
                                             recommendations.
February 15...............................  Congressional Budget Office
                                             submits report to Budget
                                             Committees.
Not later than 6 weeks after budget         Committees submit views and
 submission.                                 estimates to Budget
                                             Committees.
April 1...................................  Budget Committees report
                                             concurrent resolution on
                                             the biennial budget.
May 15....................................  Congress completes action on
                                             concurrent resolution on
                                             the biennial budget.
May 15....................................  Biennial appropriation bills
                                             may be considered in the
                                             House.
June 10...................................  House Appropriations
                                             Committee reports last
                                             biennial appropriation
                                             bill.
June 30...................................  House completes action on
                                             biennial appropriation
                                             bills.
August 1..................................  Congress completes action on
                                             reconciliation legislation.
October 1.................................  Biennium begins.
 
                            ``Second Session
 
``On or before:                             Action to be completed:
 
February 15...............................  President submits budget
                                             review.
Not later than 6 weeks after President      Congressional Budget Office
 submits budget review.                      submits report to Budget
                                             Committees.
The last day of the session...............  Congress completes action on
                                             bills and resolutions
                                             authorizing new budget
                                             authority for the
                                             succeeding biennium.
 

       ``(b) Special Rule.--In the case of any first session of 
     Congress that begins in any year immediately following a leap 
     year and during which the term of a President (except a 
     President who succeeds himself or herself) begins, the 
     following dates shall supersede those set forth in subsection 
     (a):

  

                             ``First Session
``On or before:                             Action to be completed:

[[Page S4125]]

 
First Monday in April.....................  President submits budget
                                             recommendations.
April 20..................................  Committees submit views and
                                             estimates to Budget
                                             Committees.
May 15....................................  Budget Committees report
                                             concurrent resolution on
                                             the biennial budget.
June 1....................................  Congress completes action on
                                             concurrent resolution on
                                             the biennial budget.
July 1....................................  Biennial appropriation bills
                                             may be considered in the
                                             House.
July 20...................................  House completes action on
                                             biennial appropriation
                                             bills.
August 1..................................  Congress completes action on
                                             reconciliation legislation.
October 1.................................  Biennium begins.''.
 

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET AND 
                   IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT OF 1974.

       (a) Declaration of Purpose.--Section 2(2) of the 
     Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 
     U.S.C. 621(2)) is amended by striking ``each year'' and 
     inserting ``biennially''.
       (b) Definitions.--
       (1) Budget resolution.--Section 3(4) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     622(4)) is amended by striking ``fiscal year'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``biennium''.
       (2) Biennium.--Section 3 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 622) is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(11) The term `biennium' means the period of 2 
     consecutive fiscal years beginning on October 1 of any odd-
     numbered year.''.
       (c) Biennial Concurrent Resolution on the Budget.--
       (1) Section heading.--The section heading of section 301 of 
     such Act is amended by striking ``annual'' and inserting 
     ``biennial''.
       (2) Contents of resolution.--Section 301(a) of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 632(a)) is amended--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by--
       (i) striking ``April 15 of each year'' and inserting ``May 
     15 of each odd-numbered year'';
       (ii) striking ``the fiscal year beginning on October 1 of 
     such year'' the first place it appears and inserting ``the 
     biennium beginning on October 1 of such year''; and
       (iii) striking ``the fiscal year beginning on October 1 of 
     such year'' the second place it appears and inserting ``each 
     fiscal year in such period'';
       (B) in paragraph (6), by striking ``for the fiscal year'' 
     and inserting ``for each fiscal year in the biennium''; and
       (C) in paragraph (7), by striking ``for the fiscal year'' 
     and inserting ``for each fiscal year in the biennium''.
       (3) Additional matters.--Section 301(b)(3) of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 632(b)) is amended by striking ``for such fiscal 
     year'' and inserting ``for either fiscal year in such 
     biennium''.
       (4) Views of other committees.--Section 301(d) of such Act 
     (2 U.S.C. 632(d)) is amended by inserting ``(or, if 
     applicable, as provided by section 300(b))'' after ``United 
     States Code''.
       (5) Hearings.--Section 301(e)(1) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     632(e)) is amended by--
       (A) striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium''; 
     and
       (B) inserting after the second sentence the following: ``On 
     or before April 1 of each odd-numbered year (or, if 
     applicable, as provided by section 300(b)), the Committee on 
     the Budget of each House shall report to its House the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget referred to in subsection 
     (a) for the biennium beginning on October 1 of that year.''.
       (6) Goals for reducing unemployment.--Section 301(f) of 
     such Act (2 U.S.C. 632(f)) is amended by striking ``fiscal 
     year'' each place it appears and inserting ``biennium''.
       (7) Economic assumptions.--Section 301(g)(1) of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 632(g)(1)) is amended by striking ``for a fiscal 
     year'' and inserting ``for a biennium''.
       (8) Table of contents.--The item relating to section 301 in 
     the table of contents set forth in section 1(b) of such Act 
     is amended by striking ``Annual'' and inserting ``Biennial''.
       (d) Committee Allocations.--Section 302 of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 633) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)
       (A) in paragraph (1), by--
       (i) striking ``for the first fiscal year of the 
     resolution,'' and inserting ``for each fiscal year in the 
     biennium,'';
       (ii) striking ``for that period of fiscal years'' and 
     inserting ``for all fiscal years covered by the resolution''; 
     and
       (iii) striking ``for the fiscal year of that resolution'' 
     and inserting ``for each fiscal year in the biennium''; and
       (B) in paragraph (5), by striking ``April 15'' and 
     inserting ``May 15 or June 1 (under section 300(b))'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``budget year'' and 
     inserting ``biennium'';
       (3) in subsection (c) by striking ``for a fiscal year'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``for each fiscal year in 
     the biennium'';
       (4) in subsection (f)(1), by striking ``for a fiscal year'' 
     and inserting ``for a biennium'';
       (5) in subsection (f)(1), by striking ``the first fiscal 
     year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year of the biennium'';
       (6) in subsection (f)(2)(A), by--
       (A) striking ``the first fiscal year'' and inserting ``each 
     fiscal year of the biennium''; and
       (B) striking ``the total of fiscal years'' and inserting 
     ``the total of all fiscal years covered by the resolution''; 
     and
       (7) in subsection (g)(1)(A), by striking ``April'' and 
     inserting ``May''.
       (e) Section 303 Point of Order.--
       (1) In general.--Section 303(a) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     634(a)) is amended by--
       (A) striking ``the first fiscal year'' and inserting ``each 
     fiscal year of the biennium''; and
       (B) striking ``that fiscal year'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``that biennium''.
       (2) Exceptions in the house.--Section 303(b)(1) of such Act 
     (2 U.S.C. 634(b)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``the budget year'' 
     and inserting ``the biennium''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``the fiscal year'' 
     and inserting ``the biennium''.
       (3) Application to the senate.--Section 303(c)(1) of such 
     Act (2 U.S.C. 634(c)) is amended by--
       (A) striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium''; 
     and
       (B) striking ``that year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year 
     of that biennium''.
       (f) Permissible Revisions of Concurrent Resolutions on the 
     Budget.--Section 304(a) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 635) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``fiscal year'' the first two places it 
     appears and inserting ``biennium''; and
       (2) by striking ``for such fiscal year'' and inserting 
     ``for such biennium''.
       (g) Procedures for Consideration of Budget Resolutions.--
     Section 305 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 636(3)) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ``fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``biennium''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``biennium''.
       (h) Completion of House Action on Appropriation Bills.--
     Section 307 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 638) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``each year'' and inserting ``each odd-
     numbered year'';
       (2) by striking ``annual'' and inserting ``biennial'';
       (3) by striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium''; 
     and
       (4) by striking ``that year'' and inserting ``each odd-
     numbered year''.
       (i) Completion of Action on Regular Appropriation Bills.--
     Section 309 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 640) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``of any odd-numbered calendar year'' 
     after ``July'';
       (2) by striking ``annual'' and inserting ``biennial''; and
       (3) by striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium''.
       (j) Reconciliation Process.--Section 310(a) of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 641(a)) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``any fiscal year'' and inserting ``any biennium''; and
       (2) in paragraph (1) by striking ``such fiscal year'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``any fiscal year covered by 
     such resolution''.
       (k) Section 311 Point of Order.--
       (1) In the house.--Section 311(a)(1) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     642(a)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``for a fiscal year'' and inserting ``for a 
     biennium'';
       (B) by striking ``the first fiscal year'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``either fiscal year of the biennium''; 
     and
       (C) by striking ``that first fiscal year'' and inserting 
     ``each fiscal year in the biennium''.
       (2) In the senate.--Section 311(a)(2) of such Act is 
     amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``for the first fiscal 
     year'' and inserting ``for either fiscal year of the 
     biennium''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B)--
       (i) by striking ``that first fiscal year'' the first place 
     it appears and inserting ``each fiscal year in the 
     biennium''; and
       (ii) by striking ``that first fiscal year and the ensuing 
     fiscal years'' and inserting ``all fiscal years''.
       (3) Social security levels.--Section 311(a)(3) of such Act 
     is amended by--
       (A) striking ``for the first fiscal year'' and inserting 
     ``each fiscal year in the biennium''; and
       (B) striking ``that fiscal year and the ensuing fiscal 
     years'' and inserting ``all fiscal years''.
       (l) MDA Point of Order.--Section 312(c) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 643) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``for a fiscal year'' and inserting ``for a 
     biennium'';
       (2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``the first fiscal year'' 
     and inserting ``either fiscal year in the biennium'';
       (3) in paragraph (2), by striking ``that fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``either fiscal year in the biennium''; and
       (4) in the matter following paragraph (2), by striking 
     ``that fiscal year'' and inserting ``the applicable fiscal 
     year''.

     SEC. 4. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 31, UNITED STATES CODE.

       (a) Definition.--Section 1101 of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(3) `biennium' has the meaning given to such term in 
     paragraph (11) of section 3 of the Congressional Budget and 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 622(11)).''.
       (b) Budget Contents and Submission to the Congress.--
       (1) Schedule.--The matter preceding paragraph (1) in 
     section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(a) On or before the first Monday in February of each 
     odd-numbered year (or, if applicable, as provided by section 
     300(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974), beginning 
     with the One Hundred Ninth Congress, the President shall 
     transmit to the Congress, the

[[Page S4126]]

     budget for the biennium beginning on October 1 of such 
     calendar year. The budget of the United States Government 
     transmitted under this subsection shall include a budget 
     message and summary and supporting information. The President 
     shall include in each budget the following:''.
       (2) Expenditures.--Section 1105(a)(5) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``the fiscal year for 
     which the budget is submitted and the 4 fiscal years after 
     that year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium 
     for which the budget is submitted and in the succeeding 4 
     fiscal years''.
       (3) Receipts.--Section 1105(a)(6) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``the fiscal year for 
     which the budget is submitted and the 4 fiscal years after 
     that year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium 
     for which the budget is submitted and in the succeeding 4 
     years''.
       (4) Balance statements.--Section 1105(a)(9)(C) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``the fiscal 
     year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium''.
       (5) Functions and activities.--Section 1105(a)(12) of title 
     31, United States Code, is amended in subparagraph (A), by 
     striking ``the fiscal year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year 
     in the biennium''.
       (6) Allowances.--Section 1105(a)(13) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``the fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium''.
       (7) Allowances for uncontrolled expenditures.--Section 
     1105(a)(14) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``that year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year in 
     the biennium for which the budget is submitted''.
       (8) Tax expenditures.--Section 1105(a)(16) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``the fiscal 
     year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium''.
       (9) Future years.--Section 1105(a)(17) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``the fiscal year following the fiscal 
     year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium 
     following the biennium'';
       (B) by striking ``that following fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``each such fiscal year''; and
       (C) by striking ``fiscal year before the fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``biennium before the biennium''.
       (10) Prior year outlays.--Section 1105(a)(18) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``the prior fiscal year'' and inserting 
     ``each of the 2 most recently completed fiscal years,'';
       (B) by striking ``for that year'' and inserting ``with 
     respect to those fiscal years''; and
       (C) by striking ``in that year'' and inserting ``in those 
     fiscal years''.
       (11) Prior year receipts.--Section 1105(a)(19) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``the prior fiscal year'' and inserting 
     ``each of the 2 most recently completed fiscal years'';
       (B) by striking ``for that year'' and inserting ``with 
     respect to those fiscal years''; and
       (C) by striking ``in that year'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``in those fiscal years''.
       (c) Estimated Expenditures of Legislative and Judicial 
     Branches.--Section 1105(b) of title 31, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking ``each year'' and inserting ``each 
     even-numbered year''.
       (d) Recommendations To Meet Estimated Deficiencies.--
     Section 1105(c) of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``the fiscal year for'' the first place it 
     appears and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium 
     for'';
       (2) by striking ``the fiscal year for'' the second place it 
     appears and inserting ``each fiscal year of the biennium, as 
     the case may be, for''; and
       (3) by striking ``for that year'' and inserting ``for each 
     fiscal year of the biennium''.
       (e) Capital Investment Analysis.--Section 1105(e)(1) of 
     title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``ensuing fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium to which 
     such budget relates''.
       (f) Supplemental Budget Estimates and Changes.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1106(a) of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by--
       (i) inserting after ``Before July 16 of each year'' the 
     following: ``and February 15 of each even-numbered year''; 
     and
       (ii) striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium'';
       (B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``that fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``each fiscal year in such biennium'';
       (C) in paragraph (2), by striking ``fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``biennium''; and
       (D) in paragraph (3), by striking ``fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``biennium''.
       (2) Changes.--Section 1106(b) of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended by--
       (A) striking ``the fiscal year'' and inserting ``each 
     fiscal year in the biennium'';
       (B) inserting after ``Before July 16 of each year'' the 
     following: ``and February 15 of each even-numbered year''; 
     and
       (C) striking ``submitted before July 16'' and inserting 
     ``required by this subsection''.
       (g) Current Programs and Activities Estimates.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1109(a) of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``On or before the first Monday after 
     January 3 of each year (on or before February 5 in 1986)'' 
     and inserting ``At the same time the budget required by 
     section 1105 is submitted for a biennium''; and
       (B) by striking ``the following fiscal year'' and inserting 
     ``each fiscal year of such period''.
       (2) Joint economic committee.--Section 1109(b) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``March 1 of each 
     year'' and inserting ``within 6 weeks of the President's 
     budget submission for each odd-numbered year (or, if 
     applicable, as provided by section 300(b) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974)''.
       (h) Year-Ahead Requests for Authorizing Legislation.--
     Section 1110 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by--
       (1) striking ``May 16'' and inserting ``March 31''; and
       (2) striking ``year before the year in which the fiscal 
     year begins'' and inserting ``calendar year preceding the 
     calendar year in which the biennium begins''.

     SEC. 5. TWO-YEAR APPROPRIATIONS; TITLE AND STYLE OF 
                   APPROPRIATIONS ACTS.

       Section 105 of title 1, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 105. Title and style of appropriations Acts

       ``(a) The style and title of all Acts making appropriations 
     for the support of the Government shall be as follows: `An 
     Act making appropriations (here insert the object) for each 
     fiscal year in the biennium of fiscal years (here insert the 
     fiscal years of the biennium).'.
       ``(b) All Acts making regular appropriations for the 
     support of the Government shall be enacted for a biennium and 
     shall specify the amount of appropriations provided for each 
     fiscal year in such period.
       ``(c) For purposes of this section, the term `biennium' has 
     the same meaning as in section 3(11) of the Congressional 
     Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 
     622(11)).''.

     SEC. 6. MULTIYEAR AUTHORIZATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Title III of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:


                   ``authorizations of appropriations

       ``Sec. 316. (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order 
     in the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider--
       ``(1) any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report that authorizes appropriations for a period 
     of less than 2 fiscal years, unless the program, project, or 
     activity for which the appropriations are authorized will 
     require no further appropriations and will be completed or 
     terminated after the appropriations have been expended; and
       ``(2) in any odd-numbered year, any authorization or 
     revenue bill or joint resolution until Congress completes 
     action on the biennial budget resolution, all regular 
     biennial appropriations bills, and all reconciliation bills.
       ``(b) Applicability.--In the Senate, subsection (a) shall 
     not apply to--
       ``(1) any measure that is privileged for consideration 
     pursuant to a rule or statute;
       ``(2) any matter considered in Executive Session; or
       ``(3) an appropriations measure or reconciliation bill.''.
       (b) Amendment to Table of Contents.--The table of contents 
     set forth in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by adding after 
     the item relating to section 315 the following new item:

``Sec. 316. Authorizations of appropriations.''.

     SEC. 7. GOVERNMENT PLANS ON A BIENNIAL BASIS.

       (a) Strategic Plans.--Section 306 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``September 30, 1997'' 
     and inserting ``September 30, 2005'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``five years forward'' and inserting ``6 
     years forward'';
       (B) by striking ``at least every three years'' and 
     inserting ``at least every 4 years''; and
       (C) by striking beginning with ``, except that'' through 
     ``four years''; and
       (3) in subsection (c), by inserting a comma after 
     ``section'' the second place it appears and adding 
     ``including a strategic plan submitted by September 30, 2005 
     meeting the requirements of subsection (a)''.
       (b) Budget Contents and Submission to Congress.--Paragraph 
     (28) of section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``beginning with fiscal year 1999, a'' 
     and inserting ``beginning with fiscal year 2006, a 
     biennial''.
       (c) Performance Plans.--Section 1115 of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the matter before paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``section 1105(a)(29)'' and inserting 
     ``section 1105(a)(28)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``an annual'' and inserting ``a 
     biennial'';
       (B) in paragraph (1) by inserting after ``program 
     activity'' the following: ``for both years 1 and 2 of the 
     biennial plan'';
       (C) in paragraph (5) by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon,
       (D) in paragraph (6) by striking the period and inserting a 
     semicolon; and inserting ``and'' after the inserted 
     semicolon; and
       (E) by adding after paragraph (6) the following:
       ``(7) cover a 2-year period beginning with the first fiscal 
     year of the next biennial budget cycle.'';
       (2) in subsection (d) by striking ``annual'' and inserting 
     ``biennial''; and

[[Page S4127]]

       (3) in paragraph (6) of subsection (f) by striking 
     ``annual'' and inserting ``biennial''.
       (d) Managerial Accountability and Flexibility.--Section 
     9703 of title 31, United States Code, relating to managerial 
     accountability, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the first sentence by striking ``annual''; and
       (B) by striking ``section 1105(a)(29)'' and inserting 
     ``section 1105(a)(28)'';
       (2) in subsection (e)--
       (A) in the first sentence by striking ``one or'' before 
     ``years'';
       (B) in the second sentence by striking ``a subsequent 
     year'' and inserting ``a subsequent 2-year period''; and
       (C) in the third sentence by striking ``three'' and 
     inserting ``4''.
       (e) Pilot Projects for Performance Budgeting.--Section 1119 
     of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) of subsection (d), by striking 
     ``annual'' and inserting ``biennial''; and
       (2) in subsection (e), by striking ``annual'' and inserting 
     ``biennial''.
       (f) Strategic Plans.--Section 2802 of title 39, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) is subsection (a), by striking ``September 30, 1997'' 
     and inserting ``September 30, 2005'';
       (2) by striking ``five years forward'' and inserting ``6 
     years forward'';
       (3) in subsection (b), by striking ``at least every three 
     years'' and inserting ``at least every 4 years''; and
       (4) in subsection (c), by inserting a comma after 
     ``section'' the second place it appears and inserting 
     ``including a strategic plan submitted by September 30, 2005 
     meeting the requirements of subsection (a)''.
       (g) Performance Plans.--Section 2803(a) of title 39, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the matter before paragraph (1), by striking ``an 
     annual'' and inserting ``a biennial'';
       (2) in paragraph (1), by inserting after ``program 
     activity'' the following: ``for both years 1 and 2 of the 
     biennial plan'';
       (3) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (4) in paragraph (6), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (5) by adding after paragraph (6) the following:
       ``(7) cover a 2-year period beginning with the first fiscal 
     year of the next biennial budget cycle.''.
       (h) Committee Views of Plans and Reports.--Section 301(d) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act (2 U.S.C. 632(d)) is amended 
     by adding at the end ``Each committee of the Senate or the 
     House of Representatives shall review the strategic plans, 
     performance plans, and performance reports, required under 
     section 306 of title 5, United States Code, and sections 1115 
     and 1116 of title 31, United States Code, of all agencies 
     under the jurisdiction of the committee. Each committee may 
     provide its views on such plans or reports to the Committee 
     on the Budget of the applicable House.''.
       (i) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     take effect on March 1, 2005.
       (2) Agency actions.--Effective on and after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, each agency shall take such actions as 
     necessary to prepare and submit any plan or report in 
     accordance with the amendments made by this Act.

     SEC. 8. BIENNIAL APPROPRIATIONS BILLS.

       (a) In General.--Title III of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 631 et seq.) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:


            ``consideration of biennial appropriations bills

       ``Sec. 317. It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate in any odd-numbered year to 
     consider any regular bill providing new budget authority or a 
     limitation on obligations under the jurisdiction of any of 
     the subcommittees of the Committees on Appropriations for 
     only the first fiscal year of a biennium, unless the program, 
     project, or activity for which the new budget authority or 
     obligation limitation is provided will require no additional 
     authority beyond 1 year and will be completed or terminated 
     after the amount provided has been expended.''.
       (b) Amendment to Table of Contents.--The table of contents 
     set forth in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by adding after 
     the item relating to section 316 the following new item:

``Sec. 317. Consideration of biennial appropriations bills.''.

     SEC. 9. REPORT ON TWO-YEAR FISCAL PERIOD.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Director of OMB shall--
       (1) determine the impact and feasibility of changing the 
     definition of a fiscal year and the budget process based on 
     that definition to a 2-year fiscal period with a biennial 
     budget process based on the 2-year period; and
       (2) report the findings of the study to the Committees on 
     the Budget of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

       SEC. 10. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in sections 8 and 10 
     and subsection (b), this Act and the amendments made by this 
     Act shall take effect on January 1, 2007, and shall apply to 
     budget resolutions and appropriations for the biennium 
     beginning with fiscal year 2008.
       (b) Authorizations for the Biennium.--For purposes of 
     authorizations for the biennium beginning with fiscal year 
     2006, the provisions of this Act and the amendments made by 
     this Act relating to 2-year authorizations shall take effect 
     January 1, 2005.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 878. A bill to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to 
permanently prohibit the conduct of offshore drilling on the Outer 
Continental Shelf in the Mid-Atlantic and North Atlantic planning 
areas; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Lautenberg, I 
am introducing legislation, the Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism Anti-
Drilling Act, or COAST Anti-Drilling Act, to ban oil and gas drilling 
off the Mid-Atlantic and Northern Atlantic coast.
  The people of New Jersey, and other residents of States along the 
Atlantic Coast, do not want oil or gas rigs anywhere near their 
treasured beaches and fishing grounds. Such drilling poses serious 
threats not only to our environment, but to our economy, which depends 
heavily on tourism along our shore. Coastal tourism is New Jersey's 
second-largest industry, and the New Jersey Shore is one of the fastest 
growing regions in the country. According to the New Jersey Department 
of Commerce, tourism in the Garden State generates more than $31 
billion in spending, directly and indirectly supports more than 836,000 
jobs, more than 20 percent of total State employment, generates more 
than $16.6 billion in wages, and brings in more than $5.5 billion in 
tax revenues to the State.
  Until the Bush administration came into office, there was no reason 
to suspect that drilling was even a remote possibility. Since 1982, a 
statutory moratorium on leasing activities in most Outer Continental 
Shelf, OCS, areas has been included annually in Interior appropriations 
acts. In addition, President George H.W. Bush declared a leasing 
moratorium on many OCS areas on June 26, 1990, under section 12 of the 
OCS Lands Act. On June 12, 1998, President Clinton used the same 
authority to issue a memorandum to the Secretary of the Interior that 
extended the moratorium through 2012 and included additional OCS areas.
  Given the longstanding consensus against drilling in these areas, I 
was deeply disturbed to discover that on May 31, 2001, the Minerals 
Management Service released a request for proposals, RFP, to conduct a 
study of the environmental impacts of drilling in the Mid- and North-
Atlantic. The RFP noted that ``there are areas with some reservoir 
potential, for example off the coast of New Jersey.'' In addition, the 
RFP explained that the study would be conducted ``in anticipation of 
managing the exploitation of potential and proven reserves.'' I 
believed that the RFP was inappropriate and misguided, and I was 
pleased when at my urging and the urging of other coastal Senators, the 
administration rescinded it.
  After our strong bipartisan coalition fought off the Department of 
the Interior RFP, our coastal coalition came together again to fight 
off the Outer Continental Shelf inventory provisions of last year's 
energy bill. The bill directed the Department of the Interior to 
inventory all potential oil and natural gas resources in the entire 
Outer Continental Shelf, including areas off of the New Jersey coast. 
The bill would have allowed the use of seismic surveys, dart core 
sampling, and other exploration technologies, all of which would leave 
these areas vulnerable to oil spills, drilling discharges and damage to 
coastal wetlands.
  These provisions run directly counter to language that Congress has 
included annually in appropriations bills to prevent leasing, 
preleasing, and related activities in most areas of the Outer 
Continental Shelf, including areas off the New Jersey coast. 
Fortunately, this provision was dropped last year, but it is likely 
that it will resurface during debate on the Energy bill this year, and 
it is clear that we need to once and for all ban drilling off the coast 
of New Jersey and the rest of the Mid- and North-Atlantic.
  So considering the minimal benefit and significant downside of 
drilling off the coast of New Jersey, it is not worth threatening over 
800,000 New Jersey jobs to recover what the MMS estimated in 2000 to be 
196 million barrels

[[Page S4128]]

of oil, only enough to last the country barely 10 days.
  I certainly don't think it is worth the risk, and it is time for 
Congress to act to resolve this question once and for all. That is why 
I am introducing the COAST Anti-Drilling Act. The Clean Ocean and Safe 
Tourism Anti-Drilling Act would permanently ban drilling for oil, gas 
and other minerals in the Mid- and North-Atlantic.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important 
legislation. Doing so would ensure the people of New Jersey and 
neighboring States that they need not fear the specter of oil rigs off 
their beaches.
  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. 878

       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 ``Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism 
     Anti-Drilling Act'' or the ``COAST Anti-Drilling Act''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING IN CERTAIN AREAS 
                   OF THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF.

       Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1337) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(p) Prohibition of Oil and Gas Leasing in Certain Areas 
     of the Outer Continental Shelf.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this section or any other law, the Secretary of 
     the Interior shall not issue a lease for the exploration, 
     development, or production of oil, natural gas, or any other 
     mineral in--
       ``(1) the Mid-Atlantic planning area; or
       ``(2) the North Atlantic planning area.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 879. A bill to make improvements to the Arctic Research and Policy 
Act of 1984; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it has been 20 years since the passage 
of the Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984, a bill sponsored by the 
former Senator Murkowski. The time has come to make some modifications 
to reflect the experience we've gained over that time.
  I'm pleased to note that the amendments I introducing today are 
really very modest, an indication that the act--and the presidential 
commission it created--have functioned quite well. These minimal 
changes will, I hope, make them function even more smoothly.
  First, the chairman of the Arctic Research Commission will be 
authorized compensation for an additional 30 days of work during the 
course of a year. That is still far less than the actual number of days 
demanded by the position, but will help. Second, the bill will allow 
the Commission to stimulate additional interest in Arctic research by 
establishing a professional award program for excellence in research. 
Current and former members of the Commission will not be eligible. 
Awards will be capped at a symbolic amount of $1,000, but the 
recognition by each winner's scientific peers will be invaluable. Third 
and finally, the bill will allow the Commission to reciprocate in the 
expected manner when foreign delegations host a reception or other 
event. This provision is limited to no more than two-tenths of a 
percent of the Commission budget--as with the award program, the value 
is primarily symbolic, but is nonetheless important.
  Although these are small changes, they will help ensure a smoothly 
functioning Arctic Research Act, and that is important. Although it is 
not something you hear about on a daily basis, the United States is a 
leader in the very small circle of Arctic nations, and the Congress 
plays a major role in ensuring that we remain a leader in this 
critically important sphere. And make no mistake about it, the Arctic 
is critical to this country for social, strategic, economic and 
scientific reasons that are simply too plentiful to enumerate at this 
time.
  The main purposes of the Arctic Research and Policy Act are: 1, to 
establish national policy for basic and applied research on Arctic 
resources and materials, physical, biological and health sciences, and 
social and behavioral sciences; 2, to establish the U.S. Arctic 
Research Commission to promote Arctic research and to recommend 
research policies; 3, to designate the National Science Foundation as 
the lead agency for implementing Arctic research; and, 4, to establish 
the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee, IARPC, which is 
responsible for coordinating a multiplicity of Arctic research efforts 
throughout the government.
  As we continue to see evidence of Arctic warming--whether or not we 
consider it to be human-caused or natural, global or regional--it is of 
tremendous importance to prepare as best we can. The future may hold 
both positives--such as increased agricultural production and access to 
natural resources--and negatives--such as widespread damage to existing 
infrastructure, flooding, and sweeping social changes. The Arctic 
Research Commission plays a vital role and deserves our full support.
  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. 879

       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 ``Arctic Research and Policy 
     Amendments Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. CHAIRPERSON OF THE ARCTIC RESEARCH COMMISSION.

       (a) Compensation.--Section 103(d)(1) of the Arctic Research 
     and Policy Act of 1984 (15 U.S.C. 4102(d)(1)) is amended in 
     the second sentence by striking ``90 days'' and inserting ``, 
     in the case of the chairperson, 120 days, and, in the case of 
     any other member, 90 days,''.
       (b) Redesignation.--Section 103(d)(2) of the Arctic 
     Research and Policy Act of 1984 (15 U.S.C. 4102(d)(2)) is 
     amended by striking ``Chairman'' and inserting 
     ``chairperson''.

     SEC. 3. COMMISSION AWARDS FOR EXCELLENCE IN RESEARCH.

       (a) Authority.--Section 104 of the Arctic Research and 
     Policy Act of 1984 (15 U.S.C. 4103) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(b) Commission Awards for Excellence in Research.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each year, the Commission may make a 
     cash award to any person in recognition of excellence in 
     Arctic research conducted by such person or outstanding 
     support of Arctic research provided by such person.
       ``(2) Amount.--The amount of a cash award made to a person 
     under paragraph (1) shall be fixed by the Commission and 
     shall not exceed $1,000.
       ``(3) Ineligibility of commission members.--An individual 
     who is or has been a member of the Commission shall be 
     ineligible to receive an award under paragraph (1).''.
       (b) Technical Amendments.--Section 104 of such Act, as 
     amended by subsection (a), is further amended--
       (1) by inserting ``Duties of Commission.--'' before ``The 
     Commission'' in subsection (a); and
       (2) by inserting ``Report.--'' before ``Not later than'' in 
     subsection (c).

     SEC. 4. REPRESENTATION AND RECEPTION ACTIVITIES.

       Section 106 of the Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984 
     (15 U.S.C. 4105) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (5) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) expend for representation and reception expenses each 
     fiscal year not more than 0.2 percent of the amounts made 
     available to the Commission under section 111 for such fiscal 
     year.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 880. A bill to expand the boundaries of the Gulf of the Farallones 
National Marine Sanctuary and the Cordell Bank National Marine 
Sanctuary; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Gulf of the 
Farallones and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries Boundary 
Modification and Protection Act. I am joined in this effort by Senator 
Feinstein and Representative Lynn Woolsey who has introduced the 
companion bill in the other body.
  The Gulf of the Farallones and the adjacent Cordell Bank are rich 
with wildlife and are visually spectacular. They are one of 
California's--indeed America's--great natural treasures.
  Thirty-three marine mammal species use this area. Over half of these 
are threatened or endangered. The sanctuaries also contain one of the 
largest

[[Page S4129]]

populations of blue and humpback whales in the world. Every summer, 
many grey whales dwell in the boundaries and neighboring waters of the 
sanctuaries. In addition, birds rely on the rich waters and surrounding 
land for nesting, feeding, and rearing of their young.
  As effective as the current boundaries are in protecting this 
wildlife, new risks and a better understanding of the ecosystem 
necessitate extending the existing boundaries.
  My legislation would expand the boundaries of the two existing 
national marine sanctuaries to protect the entire Sonoma Coast. By 
expanding the boundaries of both the Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell 
Bank National Marine Sanctuaries, the bill will protect the Russian and 
Gualala River estuaries and the nutrient-rich Bodega Canyon from 
offshore oil drilling and pollution.
  Expanding these marine sanctuaries will help to ensure that they 
remain the treasures they are. I urge my colleagues to support this 
bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Dorgan, Mrs. 
        Murray, and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 881. A bill to provide for equitable compensation to the Spokane 
Tribe of Indians of the Spokane Reservation for the use of tribal land 
for the production of hydropower by the Grand Coulee Dam, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
with my colleague from Washington State, Senator Murray, and former 
Senate Indian Affairs Committee chairman, Senator Inouye of Hawaii. The 
bill I submit today, which is identical to S. 1438 which passed the 
Senate unanimously on November 19, 2004, provides an equitable 
settlement of a longer standing injustice to the Spokane Tribe of 
Indians.
  For more than half a century, the Columbia Basin Project has made an 
extraordinary contribution to this Nation. It helped pull the economy 
out of the Great Depression. It provided the electricity that produced 
aluminum required for airplanes and weapons that ensured our national 
security. The project continues to produce enormous revenues for the 
United States. It is a key component of the agricultural economy in 
eastern Washington and plays a pivotal role in the electric systems 
serving the entire western United States.
  However, these benefits have come at a direct cost to tribal property 
that became inundated when the U.S. Government built the Grand Coulee 
Dam. Before dam construction, the free flowing Columbia River supported 
robust and plentiful salmon runs and provided for virtually all of the 
subsistence needs of the Spokane Tribe. After construction, the 
Columbia and its Spokane River tributary flooded tribal communities, 
schools, and roads, and the remaining stagnant water continues to erode 
reservation lands today.
  The legislation Senators Inouye, Murray and I are introducing today 
is similar to P.L. 103-436, which was enacted in 1994 to provide just 
compensation to the neighboring Confederated Colville Tribes. This bill 
would provide the Spokane Tribe of Indians with compensation for the 
use of its lands for the production of hydropower by the Grand Coulee 
Dam under a formula based in part on that by which the Confederated 
Tribes of the Colville Reservation were compensated in the Colville 
Tribes' settlement legislation in 1994. The Spokane Tribe lost lands 
equivalent in area to 39.4 percent of the lands lost to Colville Tribes 
a settlement based solely on this factor would result in a proportional 
payment of 39.4 percent to the Spokane Tribe. This was the formula 
basis for similar Spokane settlement legislation introduced in the 
Senate and House in the 107th, 108th, and 109th Congress. However, 
based upon good faith, honorable and extensive negotiations by and 
between the Spokane Tribe, the Bonneville Power Administration, the 
Bureau of Reclamation the National Park Service during the past year, 
this percentage has been reduced to 29 percent in recognition of the 
fact that certain lands taken for the construction of the Grand Coulee 
Dam would be restored to the Spokane Tribe under the terms of this 
legislation. The legislation reserves a perpetual right, power, and 
easement over the land transferred to carry out the Columbia Basin 
Project under the Columbia Basin Project Act, 16 U.S.C. 835 et seq.
  The United States has a trust responsibility to maintain and protect 
the integrity of all tribal lands with its borders. When Federal 
actions physically or economically impact or harm, our Nation has a 
legal responsibility to address and compensate the damaged parties. 
Unfortunately, despite countless effort, half a century has passed 
without justice to the Spokane people.
  In hearings before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on October 
2, 2003, Robert A. Robinson, Managing Director, Natural Resources and 
Environment, General Accounting Office testified:

       A reasonable case can be made to settle the Spokane Tribe's 
     case along the lines of the Colville settlement--a one-time 
     payment from the U.S. Treasury for past lost payments for 
     water power values and annual payments primarily from 
     Bonneville [BPA]. Bonneville continues to earn revenues from 
     the Spokane reservation lands used to generate hydropower. 
     However, unlike the Colville Tribes, the Spokane Tribe does 
     not benefit from these revenues. The Spokane Tribe does not 
     benefit because it missed its filing opportunity before the 
     Indian Claims Commission. At that time it was pursuing other 
     avenues to win payments for the value of its land for 
     hydropower. These efforts would ultimately fail. Without 
     congressional action, it seems unlikely that a settlement for 
     the Spokane Tribe will occur.

  The time has come for the Federal Government to finally meet its 
fiduciary responsibility for converting the Spokane Tribe's resource to 
its own benefit. Senators Inouye, Murray and I believe that the 
legislation we are proposing today will finally bring a fair and 
honorable closure to these matters. We are pleased that similar 
bipartisan legislation was also introduced today in the U.S House of 
Representatives.
  I look forward to working with the Indian Affairs Committee and 
Senate colleagues as this legislation proceeds through the Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Wyden, Mr. 
        Lautenberg, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lieberman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. 
        Kennedy, Mr. Reed, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
        Feingold, and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 882. A bill to designate certain Federal land in the State of Utah 
as wilderness, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce America's Red 
Rock Wilderness Act of 2005. This legislation continues our Nation's 
commitment to preserve our natural heritage. Preservation of our 
Nation's vital natural resources will be one of our most important 
legacies.
  Unfortunately, remaining wilderness areas are increasingly threatened 
and degraded by oil and gas development, mining, claims of rights of 
way, logging and off-road vehicles. America's Red Rock Wilderness Act 
will designate 9.5 million acres of land managed by the Bureau of Land 
Management, BLM, in Utah as wilderness under the Wilderness Act. 
Wilderness designation will preserve the land's wilderness character, 
along with the values associated with that wilderness; scenic beauty, 
solitude, wildlife, geological features, archaeological sites, and 
other features of scientific, educational and historical value.
  America's Red Rock Wilderness Act will provide wilderness protection 
for red rock cliffs offering spectacular vistas of rare rock 
formations, canyons and desert lands, important archaeological sites, 
and habitat for rare plant and animal species.
  Volunteers have taken inventories of thousands of square miles of BLM 
land in Utah to help determine which lands should be protected. These 
volunteers provided extensive documentation to ensure that these areas 
meet Federal wilderness criteria. The BLM also completed a reinventory 
of approximately 6 million acres of Federal land in the same area. The 
results provide a convincing confirmation that the areas designated for 
protection under this bill meet Federal wilderness criteria.
  For more than 20 years Utah conservationists have been working to add 
the last great blocks of undeveloped BLM-administered land in Utah to 
the National Wilderness Preservation System. The lands proposed for 
protection

[[Page S4130]]

surround and connect eight of Utah's nine national park, monument and 
recreation areas. These proposed BLM wilderness areas easily equal 
their neighboring national parklands in scenic beauty, opportunities 
for recreation, and ecological importance. Yet, unlike the parks, most 
of these scenic treasures lack any form of long-term protection.
  While my legislation would unambiguously protect Utah's red rock 
wilderness, the question of preserving these lands for future 
generations now also looms before the BLM. Not since the BLM conducted 
its inventories of Utah public lands in the early 1980s has the agency 
had such a promising opportunity to recognize and care for Utah's 
wilderness. Whether the BLM realizes this opportunity has yet to be 
seen.
  Today, nearly 6 million acres of wildlands that my legislation would 
protect are involved in the BLM's land use planning process. As I 
understand, the BLM will be making lasting decisions about what places 
should be preserved or developed, roaded or left unroaded, or 
designated for off-road vehicle travel. These policies will stand for 
as much as 15 to 20 years, a timespan long enough to leave a lasting 
mark on this landscape.
  We must be clear about the impact of these plans. Fundamentally, the 
administration is choosing how it will act as stewards for our wild and 
scenic places. These plans in Utah will profoundly influence many 
fragile desert lands that would be protected under America's Red Rock 
Wilderness Act. Places like the San Rafael Swell, the Book Cliffs, the 
Canyonlands Basin, and Moab/La Sal Region now hang in the balance.
  I believe Americans understand the need for wise and balanced 
stewardship of these wild landscapes. Unfortunately, the administration 
has proposed little or no serious protections for Utah's most majestic 
places. Instead, the BLM appears to lack a solid conservation ethic and 
routinely favors development and consumptive uses of our wild public 
land.
  The administration has a decidedly different approach on the fate of 
some of our remaining wilderness. Under the Price plan, the BLM leaves 
98 percent of the region's lands in America's Red Rock Wilderness Act, 
outside of already protected areas, open to oil and gas drilling. 
Sadly, the Green River, which cuts deep into the rugged Book Cliffs 
forming the sandstone cliffs of Desolation Canyon, and other natural 
wonders are being jeopardized by the BLM for a negligible amount of 
oil.
  The BLM has made important headway in protecting America's Red Rock 
Wilderness from off-road vehicle abuse, but more can still be done to 
safely and effectively plan for off-road vehicle recreation. Just 5 
years ago, 94 percent of BLM public land in Utah lacked protection from 
motorized vehicle abuse. As open BLM areas, many fragile lands in 
America's Red Rock Wilderness Act and elsewhere were vulnerable to off-
road vehicle abuse. Since this free-for-all era, BLM trail designations 
have helped to educate motorized users and direct use to appropriate 
areas. Stewardship over the long-term is still needed to ensure that 
our wilderness legacy remains intact.
  America's Red Rock Wilderness Act is a lasting gift to the American 
public. By protecting this serene yet wild land we are giving future 
generations the opportunity to enjoy the same untrammeled landscape 
that so many now cherish.
  I'd like to thank all of my colleagues who are original cosponsors of 
this measure this year, many of whom have supported the bill since it 
was first introduced. The original cosponsors of the measure are 
Senators Stabenow, Wyden, Feingold, Lautenberg, Bayh, Leahy, Lieberman, 
Boxer, Kennedy, Reed, Clinton, Corzine and Kerry. Additionally, I would 
like to thank The Utah Wilderness Coalition, which includes The 
Wilderness Society and Sierra Club; The Southern Utah Wilderness 
Alliance; and all of the other national, regional and local, hard-
working groups who, for years, have championed this legislation.
  Theodore Roosevelt once stated:

       The Nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources 
     as assets which it must turn over to the next generation 
     increased and not impaired in value.

  Enactment of this legislation will help us realize Roosevelt's 
vision. In order to protect these precious resources in Utah for future 
generations, I urge my colleagues to support America's Red Rock 
Wilderness Act.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am very pleased to again join the 
senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, as an original co-sponsor of 
legislation to designate more than one million acres of Bureau of Land 
Management, BLM, lands in Utah as wilderness.
  I had an opportunity to travel twice to Utah. I viewed firsthand some 
of the lands that would be designated for wilderness under Senator 
Durbin's bill. I was able to view most of the proposed wilderness areas 
from the air, and was able to enhance my understanding through hikes 
outside the Zion National Park on the Dry Creek Bench wilderness unit 
contained in this proposal and inside the Grand Staircase-Escalante 
National Monument to Upper Calf Creek Falls. I also viewed the lands 
proposed for designation in this bill from a river trip down the 
Colorado River, and in the San Rafael Swell with members of the Emery 
County government.
  I support this legislation for a number of reasons, but most of all 
because I have personally seen what is at stake, and I know the 
marvelous resources that Wisconsinites and all Americans own in the BLM 
lands of Southern Utah.
  Second, I support this legislation because I believe it sets the 
broadest and boldest mark for the lands that should be protected in 
Southern Utah. I believe that when the Senate considers wilderness 
legislation it ought to know, as a benchmark, the full measure of those 
lands which are deserving of wilderness protection. This bill 
encompasses all the BLM lands of wilderness quality in Utah. 
Unfortunately, the Senate has not always had the benefit of considering 
wilderness designations for all of the deserving lands in Southern 
Utah. During the 104th Congress, I joined with the former Senator from 
New Jersey, Mr. Bradley, in opposing that Congress's Omnibus Parks 
legislation. It contained provisions, which were eventually removed, 
that many in my home state of Wisconsin believed not only designated as 
wilderness too little of the Bureau of Land Management's holding in 
Utah deserving of such protection, but also substantively changed the 
protections afforded designated lands under the Wilderness Act of 1964.
  The lands of Southern Utah are very special to the people of 
Wisconsin. In writing to me over the last few years, my constituents 
have described these lands as places of solitude, special family 
moments, and incredible beauty. In December 1997, Ron Raunikar of 
Madison, Wisconsin's Capital Times wrote:

       Other remaining wilderness in the U.S. is at first 
     daunting, but then endearing and always a treasure for all 
     Americans. The sensually sculpted slickrock of the Colorado 
     Plateau and windswept crag lines of the Great Basin include 
     some of the last of our country's wilderness, which is not 
     fully protected.
       We must ask our elected officials to redress this 
     circumstance, by enacting legislation which would protect 
     those national lands within the boundaries of Utah. This 
     wilderness is a treasure we can lose only once or a legacy we 
     can be forever proud to bestow to our children.

  I believe that the measure being introduced today will accomplish 
that goal. The measure protects wild lands that really are not done 
justice by any description in words. In my trip I found widely varied 
and distinct terrain, remarkable American resources of red rock cliff 
walls, desert, canyons and gorges which encompass the canyon country of 
the Colorado Plateau, the Mojave Desert and portions of the Great 
Basin. The lands also include mountain ranges in western Utah, and 
stark areas like the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. These 
regions appeal to all types of American outdoor interests from hikers 
and sightseers to hunters.
  Phil Haslanger of the Capital Times, answered an important question I 
am often asked when people want to know why a Senator from Wisconsin 
would co-sponsor legislation to protect lands in Utah. He wrote on 
September 13, 1995 simply that:

       ``These are not scenes that you could see in Wisconsin. 
     That's part of what makes them special.''

  He continues, and adds what I think is an even more important reason 
to act to protect these lands than the landscape's uniqueness:


[[Page S4131]]


     ``the fight over wilderness lands in Utah is a test case of 
     sorts. The anti-environmental factions in Congress are trying 
     hard to remove restrictions on development in some of the 
     nation's most splendid areas.''

  Ten years later, Wisconsinites are still watching this test case. I 
believe that Wisconsinites view the outcome of this fight to save 
Utah's lands as a sign of where the Nation is headed with respect to 
its stewardship of natural resources. What Haslanger's comments make 
clear is that while some in Congress may express concern about creating 
new wilderness in Utah, wilderness, as Wisconsinites know, is not 
created by legislation. Legislation to protect existing wilderness 
simply ensures that future generations may have an experience on public 
lands equal to that which is available today. The action of Congress to 
preserve wild lands by extending the protections of the Wilderness Act 
of 1964 will publicly codify that expectation and promise.
  Finally, this legislation has earned my support, and deserves the 
support of others in this body, because all of the acres that will be 
protected under this bill are already public lands held in trust by the 
Federal Government for the people of the United States. Thus, while 
they are physically located in Utah, their preservation is important to 
the citizens of Wisconsin, as it is for other Americans.
  I am eager to work with my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, to 
protect these lands. I commend him for introducing this measure.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. 
        Salazar, and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 886. A bill to eliminate the annual operating deficit and 
maintenance backlog in the national parks, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by 
Senators Alexander, Lieberman, Salazar, and Feinstein in introducing 
legislation to restore and maintain our National Parks by the 
centennial anniversary of the National Park System in 2016.
  Heralding the establishment of the first National Parks, President 
Theodore Roosevelt stated, ``We have fallen heirs to the most glorious 
heritage a people ever received, and each one must do his part if we 
wish to show that the nation is worthy of its good fortune.''
  And what a priceless fortune Americans enjoy--Yellowstone, the Grand 
Canyon, Yosemite, the Tetons, Mt. Rushmore, the Everglades, and 
hundreds of other extraordinary national parks that grace our country. 
Hundreds of millions of families and visitors from all over the world 
have visited these parks for recreational, educational, and cultural 
opportunities as well as the sheer pleasure of being surrounded by 
their natural beauty or historical significance.
  Unfortunately, all of this public enjoyment and use coupled with the 
lack of adequate financial investment in our parks has left them in a 
state of disrepair and neglect. A multi-billion dollar maintenance 
backlog has cast a long shadow over the glory of our national park 
heritage. An annual operating deficit estimated at $600 million has 
further diminished the integrity of national park programs and 
facilities.
  The National Parks Centennial Act would allow all Americans to 
contribute to the restoration of the parks through the creation of a 
Centennial Fund with monies generated by a check-off box on federal tax 
returns. The funds collected will be directed to the priority 
maintenance and operation needs of the national parks to make them 
fiscally sound by 2016. What better way or time to demonstrate that 
``we are worthy of the good fortune of our parks''?
  I commend the National Parks Conservation Association for promoting 
this sound and innovative approach to remedying the significant 
deterioration of our parks. A companion House bill has been introduced 
by Representatives Souder and Baird with solid bipartisan support.
  Surely this is legislation that we can all agree on and support. All 
of our lives have been enriched by our National Parks. This bill 
provides an opportunity to show our appreciation to restore and 
maintain our country's cultural and natural heritage for generations to 
come. The passage of this legislation will ensure that our national 
parks will have a glorious 100th birthday to celebrate. Let's get on 
with it!
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Today I am joining with Senators McCain, Lieberman, 
Salazar and Feinstein in introducing the National Park Centennial Act--
a bill to make the National Park System fiscally sound by its 100th 
birthday in 2016. The park system currently suffers from a multi-
billion dollar backlog of maintenance projects and an operating deficit 
that exceeds $600 million each year.
  The Centennial Act aims to remedy this crisis by giving tax-payers 
the opportunity to check off a box on their tax returns each year that 
would send a small contribution to a National Park Centennial Fund. 
Today, taxpayers can contribute $3 to Presidential elections. This Act 
gives taxpayers an opportunity to contribute directly to our national 
parks via their tax returns.
  Our parks are national treasures, and they deserve to be preserved in 
all their pristine glory. They are a part of our heritage.
  It is a national travesty that they suffer from such a terrible lack 
of funding. The overall backlog, according to the Congressional 
Research Service, is about $7 billion, though estimates vary by about 
$2 billion in either direction.
  My own State, along with our neighbor North Carolina, is home to the 
country's most visited national park, the Great Smoky Mountains 
National Park. I live just a few miles from the park myself.
  In Tennessee, we have tried to deal with the maintenance backlog in a 
number of different ways. More than 2,100 volunteers have provided over 
110,000 man-hours of service to the park, which is the equivalent of 50 
staff and $1.9 million in extra funding. That's the third best 
volunteer rate in the National Park System.
  Our local communities in Tennessee and North Carolina have 
established a non-profit organization to help support the park--
``Friends of the Smokies''--which has raised more than $8 million since 
its founding in 1993 through individual, corporate and foundation 
contributions, merchandise sales, special events, and sales of 
specialty license plates in Tennessee and North Carolina. Friends now 
has over 2,000 members. In addition to its fundraising activities, 
Friends of the Smokies coordinates more than 80 volunteers who provide 
direct and indirect assistance with projects that benefit Great Smoky 
Mountains National Park.
  Yet, despite all this extra support, the backlog in the Great Smoky 
Mountains National Park remains significant. The Park's current 
maintenance backlog is estimated at approximately $180 million dollars. 
It is estimated that the Great Smokies will receive up to $36 million 
over the next 5 years to address the maintenance backlog. There is over 
a $140 million shortfall at the Great Smokies alone.
  Examples of maintenance backlog projects at the Smokies are:
  Rehabilitation of North Shore Cemetery access routes; rehabilitation 
of three comfort stations at Balsam Mountain; rehabilitation of three 
comfort stations at Chimney Tops picnic area; rehabilitation of 
Newfound Gap Road, phase one; replace obsolete parkwide key system; 
repave Clingmans Dome Trail.
  We need to do better. It will be hard to do better in this budget 
environment. So this is an innovative way to help the parks do better.
  Sixty percent of this fund will go to maintenance backlogs. Forty 
percent of this fund will supplement the annual operating deficits at 
the parks. This program will terminate in 2016.
  Parallel legislation has already been introduced in the House of 
Representatives, including Congressman Jimmy Duncan. I hope Congress 
will move quickly to address this critical need of our national parks.
  Our national parks are national treasures. They are a part of our 
heritage, a part of who we are as Americans. We need to take care of 
these parks so that they are still there, in all their glory, and still 
accessible for many generations to come.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SALAZAR:
  S. 888. A bill to direct the Department of Homeland Security to 
provide guidance and training to State and local governments relating 
to sensitive homeland security information, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on

[[Page S4132]]

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important 
piece of legislation to help our local first responders and emergency 
officials better prepare and respond to terrorist attacks.
  State and local emergency officials represent more than 95 percent of 
America's counterterrorism capability. They are on the front lines of 
the war on terror. Despite this, there is still a fundamental 
disconnect between what we do in Washington to help and what state and 
local officials actually need. Too often this happens because people in 
Washington are not listening to our folks back home.
  One familiar example is homeland security grant funding. In the years 
following 9/11, the Federal Government put more money into homeland 
security than ever before. Office of Domestic Preparedness Grants 
increased 2,900 percent from 2001 to 2003. The Federal Government acted 
quickly to get money out the door, but in too many cases, the Feds did 
not give States the guidance they needed to best use that money. As a 
result, State officials were left scratching their heads. Money was 
wasted and local officials did not get all the help they needed.
  The same is true with antiterrorism intelligence. Police and fire 
departments across the country are being bombarded with terrorism 
intelligence from more than a dozen Federal sources. State officials 
are getting expensive Federal security clearances so that they can 
review spy reports. But State and local officials are not getting the 
guidance they need to help them talk to each other.
  Police, firemen, and EMTs are the first people on site during an 
emergency, whether it is a terrorist attack or car accident. Our first 
responders must be given the information they need to safely handle any 
situation, the training they need to protect the public and the access 
to grants to purchase the proper tools to do their jobs--this 
legislation, if passed, will help do just that.
  Right now, there are surprisingly few uniform standards for non-
Federal agencies to handle sensitive homeland security information. 
While there are detailed procedures for handling classified documents 
created by the FBI, CIA and other Federal agencies, there is little 
real world guidance for how to make decisions about how to manage 
information from non-Federal sources, including locally generated 
homeland security plans, State-level grants and intelligence gathered 
by local law enforcement agencies.
  This lack of guidance has real implications for public safety. Over 
the last few months, Colorado's State government has been fighting over 
the Secretary of State homeland security information. Currently, 
Colorado State law makes secret a wide swath of homeland security 
information, including any document sent to, from, or on behalf of the 
State Office of Preparedness, Security and Fire Safety. Local officials 
have trouble acquiring State information to help them develop 
antiterrorism plans, and even State legislators can't find out where 
homeland security money is going.
  State officials across the country have wasted precious resources 
battling over what to make public and what to keep secret. They have 
established a wide array of procedures for sharing sensitive 
information among emergency management personnel. The current system of 
distributing homeland security intelligence and grants funding is 
inefficient and has failed to ensure an adequate balance between 
protecting sensitive information and ensuring that first responders and 
the public have the information they need to keep Coloradans and 
Americans safe.
  The legislation I am introducing would take three steps to clearing 
up this confusion and giving States the tools they need to better 
prepare and respond to terrorist attacks.
  First, it establishes detailed best practices for State and local 
governments to help them determine what homeland security information 
should be made public, what should remain classified, and how different 
government entities and emergency personnel can share and use sensitive 
information.
  Second, it establishes a training program to spread these best 
practices among state and local officials.
  Third, it directs the Department of Homeland Security to provide more 
detailed instructions to State and local officials about how to manage 
information about homeland security grants that are applied for and 
awarded by DHS.
  This bill will give emergency officials across the country the tools 
they need so that they do not have to waste precious resources remaking 
the wheel on homeland security information sharing.
  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. 888

       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 ``Homeland Security 
     Information Guidance and Training Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) there are few uniform standards for State and local 
     government agencies to handle sensitive homeland security 
     information;
       (2) there are detailed procedures for handling classified 
     documents created by the Federal Government, but there is 
     little guidance for how to make decisions relating to the 
     management of information from non-Federal sources, including 
     locally generated homeland security plans, State-level 
     grants, and intelligence gathered by local law enforcement 
     agencies;
       (3) State and local government officials have--
       (A) a wide variety of approaches for handling such 
     information;
       (B) wasted precious resources battling over what 
     information to make public and what information to keep 
     secret; and
       (C) established a wide array of procedures for sharing 
     sensitive information among emergency management personnel; 
     and
       (4) the current system is inefficient and has not ensured 
     the adequate balance between protecting sensitive information 
     and ensuring that public officials and the public have the 
     information needed to keep the Nation safe.

     SEC. 3. GUIDANCE FOR BEST PRACTICES RELATING TO SENSITIVE 
                   INFORMATION.

       (a) In General.--Consistent with section 201(d) of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 121(d)), the Under 
     Secretary of Homeland Security for Information Analysis and 
     Infrastructure Protection shall establish best practices for 
     State and local governments to assist State and local 
     governments in making determinations on--
       (1) the types of sensitive non-Federal homeland security 
     information (including locally generated homeland security 
     plans, State-level grants, and intelligence gathered by local 
     law enforcement information agencies) that--
       (A) should be made available to the public; or
       (B) should be treated as information which should not be 
     made available to the public; and
       (2) how to use and share sensitive homeland security 
     information among State and local emergency management 
     personnel.
       (b) Effect on State and Local Governments.--Nothing under 
     subsection (a) shall be construed to--
       (1) require any State or local government to comply with 
     any best practice established under that subsection; or
       (2) preempt any State or local law.

     SEC. 4. TRAINING.

       The Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness 
     shall--
       (1) establish a training curriculum based on the best 
     practices established under section 3; and
       (2) provide training to State and local governments using 
     that curriculum.

     SEC. 5. GUIDANCE ON GRANT INFORMATION.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall publish in the 
     Federal Register detailed instructions for State and local 
     governments on the management of information relating to 
     homeland security grants administered by the Department of 
     Homeland Security.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Corzine, Mr. 
        Leahy, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Collins, Mr. Durbin, and 
        Ms. Cantwell):
  S. 889. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to require 
phased increases in the fuel efficiency standards applicable to light 
trucks, to require fuel economy standards for automobiles up to 10,000 
pounds gross vehicle weight, to increase the fuel economy of the 
Federal fleet of vehicles, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

[[Page S4133]]

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill with my 
colleagues Senators Snowe, Corzine, Leahy, Cantwell, Collins, Durbin, 
Schumer and Jeffords to close the SUV loophole.
  This bill would increase Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) 
standards for SUVs and other light duty trucks. It would close the 
``SUV Loophole'' and require that SUVs meet the same fuel efficiency 
standards as passenger cars by 2011.
  Crude oil prices remain above $50/barrel. On April 1, 2005, crude oil 
prices hit a record high of $57.70/barrel. Prices at the gas pump 
continue to soar as well. Today, the average price for regular gasoline 
was $2.24 per gallon. In California, the average price is almost $2.60.
  This is not a problem we can drill our way out of. Global oil demand 
is rising. China imports more than 40 percent of its record 6.4 
million-barrel-per-day oil demand and its consumption is growing by 7.5 
percent per year, seven times faster than the U.S.
  India imports approximately 70 percent of its oil, which is projected 
to rise to more than 90 percent by 2020. Their rapidly growing 
economies are fueling their growing dependence on oil--which makes 
continued higher prices inevitable.
  The most effective step we can take to reduce gas prices is to reduce 
demand. We must use our finite fuel supplies more wisely.
  This legislation is an important first step to limit our nation's 
dependence on oil and better protect our environment.
  If implemented, closing the SUV Loophole would: save the U.S. 1 
million barrels of oil a day and reduce our dependence on oil imports 
by 10 percent.
  Prevent about 240 million tons of carbon dioxide--the top greenhouse 
gas and biggest single cause of global warming from entering the 
atmosphere each year.
  Save SUV and light duty truck owners hundreds of dollars each year in 
gasoline costs.
  CAFE Standards were first established in 1975. At that time, light 
trucks made up only a small percentage of the vehicles on the road, 
they were used mostly for agriculture and commerce, not as passenger 
cars.
  Today, our roads look much different, SUVs and light duty trucks 
comprise more than half of the new car sales in the United States. As a 
result, the overall fuel economy of our Nation's fleet is the lowest it 
has been in two decades, because fuel economy standards for these 
vehicles are so much lower than they are for other passenger vehicles.
  The bill we are introducing today would change that. SUVs and other 
light duty trucks would have to meet the same fuel economy requirements 
by 2011 that passenger cars meet today.
  The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, has 
proposed phasing in an increase in fuel economy standards for SUVs and 
light trucks under the following schedule: by 2005, SUVs and light 
trucks would have to average 21.0 miles per gallon; by 2006, SUVs and 
light trucks would have to average 21.6 miles per gallon; and by 2007, 
SUVs and light trucks would have to average 22.2 miles per gallon.
  In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences, NAS, released a report 
stating that adequate lead time can bring about substantive increases 
in fuel economy standards. Automakers can meet higher CAFE standards if 
existing technologies are utilized and included in new models of SUVs 
and light trucks.
  In 2003, the head of the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration said he favored an increase in vehicle fuel economy 
standards beyond the 1.5-mile-per-gallon hike slated to go into effect 
by 2007. ``We can do better,'' said Jeffrey Runge in an interview with 
Congressional Green Sheets. ``The overriding goal here is better fuel 
economy to decrease our reliance on foreign oil without compromising 
safety or American jobs,'' he said.
  With this in mind, we have developed the following phase-in schedule 
which would follow up on what NHTSA has proposed for the short term and 
remain consistent with what the NAS report said is technologically 
feasible over the next decade or so: by model year 2008, SUVs and light 
duty vehicles would have to average 23.5 miles per gallon; by model 
year 2009, SUVs and light duty vehicles would have to average 24.8 
miles per gallon; by model year 2010, SUVs and light duty vehicles 
would have to average 26.1 miles per gallon, by model year 2011, SUVs 
and light duty vehicles would have to average 27.5 miles per gallon.
  This legislation would do two other things: it would mandate that by 
2008 the average fuel economy of the new vehicles comprising the 
Federal fleet must be 3 miles per gallon higher than the baseline 
average fuel economy for that class. And by 2011, the average fuel 
economy of the new federal vehicles must be 6 miles per gallon higher 
than the baseline average fuel economy for that class.
  The bill also increases the weight limit within which vehicles are 
bound by CAFE standards to make it harder for automotive manufacturers 
to build SUVs large enough to become exempted from CAFE standards. 
Because SUVs are becoming larger and larger, some may become so large 
that they will no longer qualify as even SUVs anymore.
  We are introducing this legislation because we believe that the 
United States needs to take a leadership role in the fight against 
global warming.
  We have already seen the potential destruction that global warming 
can cause in the United States.
  Snowpacks in the Sierra Nevada are shrinking and will almost entirely 
disappear by the end of the century, devastating the source of 
California's water.
  Eskimos are being forced inland in Alaska as their native homes on 
the coastline are melting into the sea.
  Glaciers are disappearing in Glacier National Park in Montana. In 100 
years, the park has gone from having 150 glaciers to fewer than 30. And 
the 30 that remain are two-thirds smaller than they once were.
  Beyond our borders, scientists are predicting how the impact of 
global warming will be felt around the globe.
  It has been estimated that two-thirds of the glaciers in western 
China will melt by 2050, seriously diminishing the water supply for the 
region's 300 million inhabitants. Additionally, the disappearance of 
glaciers in the Andes in Peru is projected to leave the population 
without an adequate water supply during the summer.
  The United States is the largest energy consumer in the world, with 4 
percent of the world's population using 25 percent of the planet's 
energy.
  And much of this energy is used in cars and light trucks: 43 percent 
of the oil we use goes into our vehicles and one-third of all carbon 
dioxide emissions come from our transportation sector.
  The U.S. is falling behind the rest of the world in the development 
of more fuel efficient automobiles. Quarterly auto sales reflect that 
consumers are buying smaller more fuel efficient cars and sales of the 
big, luxury vehicles that are the preferred vehicle of the American 
automakers have dropped significantly.
  Even SUV sales have slowed. First quarter 2005 deliveries of these 
vehicles are down compared to the same period last year--for example, 
sales of the Ford Excursion is down by 29.5 percent, the Cadillac 
Escalade by 19.9 percent, and the Toyota Sequoia by 12.6 percent.
  On the other hand, the Toyota Prius hybrid had record sales in March 
with a 160.9 percent increase over the previous year.
  The struggling U.S. auto market cannot afford to fall behind in the 
development of fuel efficient vehicles. Our bill sets out a reasonable 
time frame for car manufacturers to design vehicles that are more fuel 
efficient and that will meet the growing demand for more fuel efficient 
vehicles.
  We can do this, and we can do this today. I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 889

       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 ``Automobile Fuel Economy Act 
     of 2005''.

[[Page S4134]]

     SEC. 2. INCREASED AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARD FOR LIGHT 
                   TRUCKS.

       (a) Definition of Light Truck.--Section 32901(a) of title 
     49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in each of paragraphs (1) through (14), by striking the 
     period at the end and inserting a semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (15), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and'';
       (3) by redesignating paragraphs (12) through (16) as 
     paragraphs (13) through (17), respectively; and
       (4) by inserting after paragraph (11) the following:
       ``(12) `light truck' has the meaning given that term in 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation in 
     the administration of this chapter;''.
       (b) Requirement for Increased Standard.--Section 32902(a) 
     of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``AUTOMOBILES.--'';
       (2) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting ``Subject 
     to paragraph (2), the Secretary''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following :
       ``(2) The average fuel economy standard for light trucks 
     manufactured by a manufacturer may not be less than 27.5 
     miles per gallon, except that the average fuel economy 
     standard for light trucks manufactured by a manufacturer in a 
     model year before model year 2011 and--
       ``(A) after model year 2008 may not be less than 23.5 miles 
     per gallon;
       ``(B) after model year 2009 may not be less than 24.8 miles 
     per gallon; and
       ``(C) after model year 2010 may not be less than 26.1 miles 
     per gallon.''.
       (c) Applicability.--Section 32902(a)(2) of title 49, United 
     States Code, as added by subsection (b)(3), shall not apply 
     with respect to light trucks manufactured before model year 
     2009.

     SEC. 3. FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS FOR AUTOMOBILES UP TO 10,000 
                   POUNDS GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT.

       (a) Vehicles Defined as Automobiles.--Section 32901(a)(3) 
     of title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``rated at--'' and all that follows and inserting ``rated at 
     not more than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on January 1, 2011.

     SEC. 4. FUEL ECONOMY OF THE FEDERAL FLEET OF VEHICLES.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the term ``class of vehicles'' means a class of 
     vehicles for which an average fuel economy standard is in 
     effect under chapter 329 of title 49, United States Code;
       (2) the term ``executive agency'' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 4(1) of the Office of Federal Procurement 
     Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403(1)); and
       (3) the term ``new vehicle'', with respect to the fleet of 
     vehicles of an executive agency, means a vehicle procured by 
     or for the agency after September 30, 2007.
       (b) Baseline Average Fuel Economy.--The head of each 
     executive agency shall determine the average fuel economy for 
     all of the vehicles in each class of vehicles in the agency's 
     fleet of vehicles in fiscal year 2006.
       (c) Increase of Average Fuel Economy.--The head of each 
     executive agency shall manage the procurement of vehicles in 
     each class of vehicles for that agency to ensure that--
       (1) not later than September 30, 2008, the average fuel 
     economy of the new vehicles in the agency's fleet of vehicles 
     in each class of vehicles is not less than 3 miles per gallon 
     higher than the baseline average fuel economy determined for 
     that class; and
       (2) not later than September 30, 2011, the average fuel 
     economy of the new vehicles in the agency's fleet of vehicles 
     in each class of vehicles is not less than 6 miles per gallon 
     higher than the baseline average fuel economy determined for 
     that class.
       (d) Calculation of Average Fuel Economy.--For purposes of 
     this section--
       (1) average fuel economy shall be calculated in accordance 
     with guidance prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation 
     for the implementation of this section; and
       (2) average fuel economy calculated under subsection (b) 
     for an agency's vehicles in a class of vehicles shall be the 
     baseline average fuel economy for the agency's fleet of 
     vehicles in that class.

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my esteemed colleague, 
Senator Feinstein as the lead cosponsor for the Feinstein-Snowe 
legislation that will rectify an unacceptable inequity when it comes to 
obtaining greater fuel economy for the vehicles we choose to drive. 
This bill allows us to take a road currently less traveled towards 
decreasing our Nation's need to import greater and greater amounts of 
foreign oil from the most volatile area of the globe, and at the same 
time, decrease polluting vehicle emissions that affect both the 
public's and the planet's health.
  What is clear, on the eve of Earth Day, is that the Federal 
Government must lead in ensuring consumers a choice of vehicles with 
higher fuel economy, an appropriate degree of safety, and a minimal 
impact on our environment. Closing what is called the SUV loophole that 
allows popular SUVs and other light trucks to get only 20.7 miles per 
gallon while other passenger cars need to meet a 27.5 mile per gallon 
threshold, will help us meet these environmental, economic, and 
national security goals, and I think it's an idea whose time has long 
since arrived.
  My colleague from California has been a passionate advocate of this 
proposal, and I'm proud to work with her again in introducing our 
practical, attainable bill that can garner the kind of broad support 
necessary to address this national imperative this year. Now I know 
when we first introduced our plan in 2001, some believed it was too 
much too soon, while others felt it didn't go far enough. And around 
here, that's usually a sign you're onto something. But can anyone 
honestly say we're better off today without nothing? That we're in 
better shape because we failed to pass what is possible four years ago?
  This legislation is a critical first step to provide real relief from 
skyrocketing gas prices that have reached over $2 a gallon all across 
the county are estimated to stay high throughout the year. The increase 
in Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards for the light 
trucks category--mostly SUVs and minivans--will ultimately decrease our 
need for foreign oil. I would like to bring to my colleagues' attention 
that every hour, $28 million leaves our country to pay for the Nation's 
unquenched thirst for foreign oil. When it comes to the fuel economy of 
America's sport utility vehicles, surely we can do better for our 
pocketbooks, for our planet, and for our promise for the future.
  It is unacceptable to me that a developing country like China has put 
in place new regulations that are more stringent than U.S. CAFE 
standards to promote better fuel. economy in their vehicles and rein in 
that country's energy consumption. Like the U.S., China greatly depends 
upon foreign oil. However, China's GDP per capita was only 
approximately $860 in 2004 while the U.S. was at $35,000 per person. 
The standards that go into force in China in July of 2005, require that 
all new passenger cars get two miles per gallon more than U.S. CAFE 
standards. And SUVs will have to achieve 1.7 to 2.7 miles per gallon 
more depending on the make. By 2008, large cars in China will have to 
get 30.4 miles per gallon. China, very aware of their rising oil 
imports, skyrocketing oil prices, and their air pollution, are finding 
a way to achieve greater fuel economy, but the U.S. cannot? This makes 
absolutely no sense to me.

  Right now, all our vehicles combined consume over 40 percent of our 
oil, while coughing up over 20 percent of U.S. carbon monoxide 
emissions--the greenhouse gas linked to global climate change. To put 
this in perspective, the amount of carbon monoxide emission just from 
U.S. vehicles alone is the equivalent of the fourth highest carbon 
monoxide emitting country in the world. Given these stunning numbers, 
how can we continue to allow SUVs to spew three times more pollution 
into the air than passenger cars?
  Just think for a moment how much the world has changed 
technologically over the past 25 years. We've seen the advent of the 
home computer and the information age. Computers are now running our 
automobiles, and Global Positioning System devices are guiding drivers 
to their destinations. Are we to believe that technology couldn't have 
also helped those drivers burn less fuel in getting there? Are we going 
to say that the whole world has transformed, but America doesn't have 
the where-with-all to make SUVs that get better fuel economy?
  Well, I don't believe it, and neither does the National Academy of 
Sciences that issued a report in 2001 in response to Congress' request 
the previous year that the NAS study the issue. They concluded that it 
was possible to achieve a more than 40 percent improvement particularly 
in light truck and SUV fuel economy over a 10-15 year period--and that 
technologies exist now for improving fuel economy. That was 3\1/2\ 
years ago.
  I don't want America's SUV manufacturers to be ``the industry that 
time forgot?'' and history clearly shows that the Federal Government 
must play a role in ensuring that consumers have a choice in vehicles 
with high degrees of fuel economy, an appropriate degree of

[[Page S4135]]

safety and a minimal impact on our environment. As the 2001 NAS Report 
also stated, ``Because of the concerns about greenhouse gas emissions 
and the level of oil imports, it is appropriate for the Federal 
Government to ensure fuel economy levels beyond those expected to 
result from market forces alone.'' How can we do anything less?
  So many questions that we already have the answers to but not the 
initiative or will to do so. Closing the SUV loophole will help us 
achieve so many goals, and it's an idea whose time has long since 
arrived.
  I ask for my colleagues' support for closing the SUV loophole, and I 
thank the Chair.

                          ____________________