[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 121 (Monday, September 26, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10426-S10440]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 1767. A bill to require the Federal Communications Commission to 
reevaluate the band plans for the upper 700 megaHertz band and the un-
auctioned portions of the lower 700 megaHertz band and reconfigure them 
to include spectrum to be licensed for small geographic areas; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with the support of many of my 
colleagues on the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation to 
introduce legislation to encourage the deployment of next generation 
wireless services in rural areas. Cell phones have become a vital part 
of so many lives. Today, there are over 194 million wireless 
subscribers in the United States--a subscribership that continues to 
grow. I want to be sure we foster an environment where this technology 
and future wireless technologies can flourish.
  Along with mobility, convenience and safety, cell phones today also 
have benefits of information access and entertainment. While wireless 
phones have been rapidly adopted by the general public, wireless 
service is far from being without flaws. I myself become frustrated 
while home in Maine when I cannot get cell phone and blackberry 
service. Something must be done in order to improve the wireless 
services that so many people rely on.
  Wireless services, such as cell phones, wireless handheld devices and 
some Internet services utilize frequencies on the radio spectrum to 
transfer voice and data from one user to another. It is the job of the 
service provider to turn these airwaves into the valuable services that 
consumers demand. The quality of service in a given place depends on 
how much investment the service provider has put into infrastructure. 
More urban locations tend to have better service because the return on 
investment is much higher due to the concentration of customers. This 
does not mean that rural areas are left without service. Viable 
business models exist that can sustain service in these more remote 
locations. Oftentimes smaller, local wireless companies can serve these 
areas better than nationwide service providers.
  One of the greatest barriers to entry in the wireless industry is 
acquiring a spectrum license in which a service can be operated. 
Companies bid up to billions of dollars for rights to one of Nation's 
most important resources. The digital television transition will soon 
release new spectrum into the marketplace. Currently, the Federal 
Communications Commission is slated to auction off the spectrum in 
licenses that cover large geographic areas. While this may be the 
preferred size for national wireless carriers, smaller companies will 
be unable to compete in the bidding process.
  The bill I introduce today aims to address this problem by directing 
the Federal Communications Commission to reevaluate its current 
bandplan for the 700 MHz spectrum that will be auctioned as a result of 
the digital television transition. In this reevaluation, the FCC must 
divide some of the frequency allocations into smaller area licenses so 
that local and regional wireless companies can have an opportunity to 
compete in the bidding process. The proper balance of large and small 
licenses will encourage the deployment of advanced services throughout 
all parts of the United States.
  This bill is not meant to circumvent the expertise of the Federal 
Communications Commission. It merely directs the FCC to use its 
expertise to develop a plan that will benefit the entire nation. Rural 
America deserves the same benefits of wireless technologies that are 
available in urban areas. This Act gives those best able to serve 
remote areas the tools needed to deploy services.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Allen, 
        Mr. Grassley, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 1768. A bill to permit the televising of Supreme Court 
proceedings; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to introduce 
legislation that will give the public greater access to our Supreme 
Court. This bill requires the high Court to permit television coverage 
of its open sessions unless it decides by a vote of the majority of 
Justices that allowing such coverage in a particular case would violate 
the due process rights of one or more of the parties involved in the 
matter.
  The purpose of this legislation is to open the Supreme Court doors so 
that more Americans can see the process by which the Court reaches 
critical decisions of law that affect this country and everyday 
Americans. Because the Supreme Court of the United States holds power 
to decide cutting-edge questions on public policy, thereby effectively 
becoming a virtual ``super legislature,'' the public has a right to 
know what the Supreme Court is doing. And that right would be 
substantially enhanced by televising the oral arguments of the Court so 
that the public can see and hear the issues presented to the Court. 
With this information, the public would have insight into key issues 
and be better equipped to understand the impact of the Court's 
decisions.
  In a very fundamental sense, televising the Supreme Court has been 
implicitly recognized--perhaps even sanctioned--in a 1980 decision by 
the Supreme Court of the United States entitled Richmond Newspapers v. 
Virginia. In this case, the Supreme Court noted that a public trial 
belongs not only to the accused, but to the public and the press as 
well; and that people now acquire information on court procedures 
chiefly through the print and electronic media.
  That decision, in referencing the electronic media, appears to 
anticipate televising court proceedings, although I do not mean to 
suggest that the Supreme Court is in agreement with this legislation. I 
should note that the Court could, on its own motion, televise its 
proceedings but has chosen not to do so, which presents, in my view, 
the necessity for legislating on this subject.
  When I argued the case of the Navy Yard, Dalton v. Specter, back in 
1994, the Court proceedings were illustrated by an artist's drawings. 
Now, however, the public gets a substantial portion, if not most, of 
its information from television and the internet. While many court 
proceedings are broadcast routinely on television, the public has 
little access to the most important and highest court in this country. 
The public must either rely on the print media, or stand in long lines 
outside the Supreme Court in Washington DC in order to get a brief 
glimpse of the open session from the public gallery.
  Justice Felix Frankfurter perhaps anticipated the day when Supreme 
Court arguments would be televised when he said that he longed for a 
day when: The news media would cover the Supreme Court as thoroughly as 
it did the World Series, since the public confidence in the judiciary 
hinges on the

[[Page S10427]]

public's perception of it, and that perception necessarily hinges on 
the media's portrayal of the legal system.
  When I spoke in favor of this legislation in September of 2000, I 
said, ``I do not expect a rush to judgment on this very complex 
proposition, but I do believe the day will come when the Supreme Court 
of the United States will be televised. That day will come, and it will 
be decisively in the public interest so the public will know the 
magnitude of what the Court is deciding and its role in our democratic 
process.'' Today, I believe the time has come and that this legislation 
is crucial to the public's awareness of Supreme Court proceedings and 
their impact on the daily lives of all Americans.
  I pause to note that it was not until 1955 that the Supreme Court, 
under the leadership of Chief Justice Warren, first began permitting 
audio recordings of oral arguments. Between 1955 and 1993, there were 
apparently over 5,000 recorded arguments before the Supreme Court. That 
roughly translates to an average of about one hundred thirty two (132) 
arguments annually. But audio recordings are simply ill suited to 
capture the nuance of oral arguments and the sustained attention of the 
American citizenry. Nor is it any response that people who wish to see 
open sessions of the Supreme Court should come to the Capital and 
attend oral arguments. For, according to one source: Several million 
people each year visit Washington, D.C., and many thousands tour the 
White House and the Capital. But few have the chance to sit in the 
Supreme Court chamber and witness an entire oral argument. Most 
tourists are given just three minutes before they are shuttled out and 
a new group shuttled in. In cases that attract headlines, seats for the 
public are scarce and waiting lines are long. And the Court sits in 
open session less than two hundred hours each year. Television cameras 
and radio microphones are still banned from the chamber, and only a few 
hundred people at most can actually witness oral arguments. Protected 
by a marble wall from public access, the Supreme Court has long been 
the least understood of the three branches of our federal government.
  In light of the increasing public desire for information, it seems 
untenable to continue excluding cameras from the courtroom of the 
Nation's highest court. As one legal commentator observes: An effective 
and legitimate way to satisfy America's curiosity about the Supreme 
Court's holdings, Justices, and modus operandi is to permit broadcast 
coverage of oral arguments and decision announcements from the 
courtroom itself.
  Televised court proceedings better enable the public to understand 
the role of the Supreme Court and its impact on the key decisions of 
the day. Not only has the Supreme Court invalidated Congressional 
decisions where there is, in the views of many, simply a difference of 
opinion to what is preferable public policy, but the Court determines 
novel issues such as whether AIDS is a disability under the Americans 
with Disabilities Act, whether Congress can ban obscenity from the 
Internet, and whether states can impose term limits upon members of 
Congress. The current Court, like its predecessors, hands down 
decisions which vitally affect the lives of all Americans. Since the 
Court's historic 1803 decision, Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court 
has the final authority on issues of enormous importance from birth to 
death. In Roe v. Wade (1973), the Court affirmed a Constitutional right 
to abortion in this country and struck down state statutes banning or 
severely restricting abortion during the first two trimesters on the 
grounds that they violated a right to privacy inherent in the Due 
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the case of Washington 
v. Glucksberg (1997), the court refused to create a similar right to 
assisted suicide. Here the Court held that the Due Process Clause does 
not recognize a liberty interest that includes a right to commit 
suicide with another's assistance.

  In the seventies, the Court first struck down then upheld state 
statutes imposing the death penalty for certain crimes. In Furman v. 
Georgia (1972), the Court struck down Georgia's death penalty statute 
under the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment 
and stated that no death penalty law could pass constitutional muster 
unless it took aggravating and mitigating circumstances into account. 
This decision led Georgia and many states to amend their death penalty 
statutes and, four years later, in Gregg v. Georgia (1976), the Supreme 
Court upheld Georgia's amended death penalty statute.
  Over the years, the Court has also played a major role in issues of 
war and peace. In its opinion in Scott v. Sanford (1857)--better known 
as the Dredd Scott decision--the Supreme Court held that Dredd Scott, a 
slave who had been taken into ``free'' territory by his owner, was 
nevertheless still a slave. The Court further held that Congress lacked 
the power to abolish slavery in certain territories, thereby 
invalidating the careful balance that had been worked out between the 
North and the South on the issue. Historians have noted that this 
opinion fanned the flames that led to the Civil War.
  The Supreme Court has also ensured adherence to the Constitution 
during more recent conflicts. Prominent opponents of the Vietnam War 
repeatedly petitioned the Court to declare the Presidential action 
unconstitutional on the grounds that Congress had never given the 
President a declaration of war. The Court decided to leave this 
conflict in the political arena and repeatedly refused to grant writs 
of certiorari to hear these cases. This prompted Justice Douglas, 
sometimes accompanied by Justices Stewart and Harlan, to take the 
unusual step of writing lengthy dissents to the denials of cert.
  In New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)--the so called 
``Pentagon Papers'' case--the Court refused to grant the government 
prior restraint to prevent the New York Times from publishing leaked 
Defense Department documents which revealed damaging information about 
the Johnson Administration and the war effort. The publication of these 
documents by the New York Times is believed to have helped move public 
opinion against the war.
  In its landmark civil rights opinions, the Supreme Court took the 
lead in effecting needed social change, helping us to address 
fundamental questions about our society in the courts rather than in 
the streets. In Brown v. Board of Education, the Court struck down the 
principle of ``separate but equal'' education for blacks and whites and 
integrated public education in this country. This case was then 
followed by a series of civil rights cases which enforced the concept 
of integration and full equality for all citizens of this country, 
including Garner v. Louisiana, 1961, Burton v. Wilmington Parking 
Authority, 1961, and Peterson v. City of Greenville, 1963.
  In recent years Marbury, Dred Scott, Furman, New York Times, and Roe, 
familiar names in the lexicon of lawyerly discussions concerning 
watershed Supreme Court precedents, have been joined with similarly 
important cases like Hamdi, Rasul and Roper all cases that affect 
fundamental individual rights. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 2004, the Court 
concluded that although Congress authorized the detention of 
combatants, due process demands that a citizen held in the United 
States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to 
contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral 
decisionmaker. The Court reaffirmed the nation's commitment to 
constitutional principles even during times of war and uncertainty. 
Similarly, in Rasul v. Bush, 2004, the Court held that the federal 
habeas statute gave district courts jurisdiction to hear challenges of 
aliens held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in the U.S. War on Terrorism. 
Earlier this year in Roper v. Simmons, 2005, the Court held that 
executions of individuals who were under 18 years of age at the time of 
their capital crimes is prohibited by Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
  In June of this year, the Supreme Court issued Kelo v. City of New 
London, 2005, a highly controversial opinion in which a majority of the 
justices held that a city's exercise of eminent domain power in 
furtherance of an economic development plan satisfied the 
Constitution's Fifth Amendment ``public use'' requirement despite 
the absence of any blight. Moreover, on June 27, 2005, the High Court 
issued two rulings regarding the public display of the Ten 
Commandments. Each opinion was backed by a different coalition of four, 
with Justice Breyer as the swing vote.

[[Page S10428]]

The only discernible rule seems to be that the Ten Commandments may be 
displayed outside a public courthouse, Van Orden v. Perry, but not 
inside (McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union) and may be 
displayed with other documents, but not alone. In Van Orden v. Perry, 
the Supreme Court permitted a display of the Ten Commandments to remain 
on the grounds outside the Texas State Capitol. However, in McCreary 
County v. ACLU, a bare majority of Supreme Court Justices ruled that 
two Kentucky counties violated the Establishment Clause by erecting 
displays of the Ten Commandments indoors for the purpose of advancing 
religion. While the multiple concurring and dissenting opinions in 
these cases serve to explain some of the confounding differences in 
outcomes, it would have been extraordinarily fruitful for the American 
public to watch the Justices as they grappled with these issues during 
oral arguments that, presumably, reveal much more of their deliberative 
processes than mere text.

  Irrespective of ones view concerning the merits of these decisions, 
it is clear beyond cavil that they have a profound effect on the 
interplay between the government, on the one hand, and the individual 
on the other. So, it is with these watershed decisions in mind that I 
introduce legislation designed to make the Supreme Court less esoteric 
and more accessible to common men and women who are so clearly affected 
by its decisions.
  When deciding issues of such great national import, the Supreme Court 
is rarely unanimous. In fact, a large number of seminal Supreme Court 
decisions have been reached through a vote of 5-4. Such a close margin 
reveals that these decisions are far from foregone conclusions 
distilled from the meaning of the Constitution and legal precedents. On 
the contrary, these major Supreme Court opinions embody critical 
decisions reached on the basis of the preferences and views of each 
individual justice. In a case that is decided by a vote of 5-4, an 
individual justice has the power by his or her vote to change the law 
of the land.
  Some would argue that the Court has even played a significant role in 
deciding political contests as well. Who can forget the Court's 
dramatic decision in Bush v. Gore that enabled the country to move on 
from a bitterly fought presidential race. That decision, with its 
enormous repercussions for the Nation, cried out for greater public 
scrutiny of the process by which the Justices heard arguments and all 
but decided the fate of the 2000 presidential race.
  Given the enormous significance of each vote cast by each Justice on 
the Supreme Court, televising the proceedings of the Supreme Court will 
allow sunlight to shine brightly on these proceedings and ensure 
greater public awareness and scrutiny.
  In a democracy, the workings of the government at all levels should 
be open to public view. With respect to oral arguments, the more 
openness and the more real the opportunity for public observation the 
greater the understanding and trust. As the Supreme Court observed in 
the 1986 case of Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, ``People in an 
open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but 
it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from 
observing.''
  It was in this spirit that the House of Representatives opened its 
deliberations to meaningful public observation by allowing C-SPAN to 
begin televising debates in the House chamber in 1979. The Senate 
followed the House's lead in 1986 by voting to allow television 
coverage of the Senate floor.
  Beyond this general policy preference for openness, however, there is 
a strong argument that the Constitution requires that television 
cameras be permitted in the Supreme Court.
  It is well established that the Constitution guarantees access to 
judicial proceedings to the press and the public. In 1980, the Supreme 
Court relied on this tradition when it held in Richmond Newspapers v. 
Virginia that the right of a public trial belongs not just to the 
accused, but to the public and the press as well. The Court noted that 
such openness has ``long been recognized as an indisputable attribute 
of an Anglo-American trial.''
  Recognizing that in modern society most people cannot physically 
attend trials, the Court specifically addressed the need for access by 
members of the media: Instead of acquiring information about trials by 
first hand observation or by word of mouth from those who attended, 
people now acquire it chiefly through the print and electronic media. 
In a sense, this validates the media claim of acting as surrogates for 
the public. [Media presence] contributes to public understanding of the 
rule of law and to comprehension of the functioning of the entire 
criminal justice system.

  To be sure, a strong argument can be made that forbidding television 
cameras in the court, while permitting access to print and other media, 
constitutes an impermissible discrimination against one type of media 
over another. In recent years, the Supreme Court and lower courts have 
repeatedly held that differential treatment of different media is 
impermissible under the First Amendment absent an overriding 
governmental interest. For example, in 1983 the Court invalidated 
discriminatory tax schemes imposed only upon certain types of media in 
Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue. In 
the 1977 case of ABC v. Cuomo, the Second Circuit rejected the 
contention by the two candidates for mayor of New York that they could 
exclude some members of the media from their campaign headquarters by 
providing access through invitation only. The Court wrote that: Once 
there is a public function, public comment, and participation by some 
of the media, the First Amendment requires equal access to all of the 
media or the rights of the First Amendment would no longer be tenable.
  In the 1965 case of Estes v. Texas, the Supreme Court rejected the 
argument that the denial of television coverage of trials violates the 
equal protection clause. In the same opinion, the Court held that the 
presence of television cameras in the Court had violated a Texas 
defendant's right to due process. Subsequent opinions have cast serious 
doubt upon the continuing relevance of both prongs of the Estes 
opinion.
  In its 1981 opinion in Chandler v. Florida, the court recognized that 
Estes must be read narrowly in light of the state of television 
technology at that time. The television coverage of Estes' 1962 trial 
required cumbersome equipment, numerous additional microphones, yards 
of new cables, distracting lighting, and numerous technicians present 
in the courtroom. In contrast, the court noted, television coverage in 
1980 can be achieved through the presence of one or two discreetly 
placed cameras without making any perceptible change in the atmosphere 
of the courtroom. Accordingly, the Court held that, despite Estes, the 
presence of television cameras in a Florida trial was not a violation 
of the rights of the defendants in that case. By the same logic, the 
holding in Estes that exclusion of television cameras from the courts 
did not violate the equal protection clause must be revisited in light 
of the dramatically different nature of television coverage today.
  Given the strength of these arguments, it is not surprising that over 
the last two decades there has been a rapidly growing acceptance of 
cameras in American courtrooms which has reached almost every court 
except for the Supreme Court itself. Ironically, it was the Chandler 
decision which helped spur the spread of television cameras in the 
courts. Shortly after Chandler, the American Bar Association revised 
its canons to permit judges to authorize televising civil and criminal 
proceedings in their courts.
  Following the green lights provided by the Supreme Court and the ABA, 
nearly all the States have decided to permit electronic coverage of at 
least some portion of their judicial proceedings. In 1990, the Federal 
Judicial Conference authorized a three-year pilot program allowing 
television coverage of civil proceedings in six federal district courts 
and two federal circuit courts. The program began in July, 1991, and 
ran through December 31, 1994. The Federal Judicial Center monitored 
the program and issued a positive final evaluation. In particular, the 
Judicial Center concluded that: Overall, attitudes of judges toward 
electronic media coverage of civil proceedings were initially neutral 
and became more favorable after experience under the pilot program.

[[Page S10429]]

  The Judicial Center also concluded that: Judges and attorneys who had 
experience with electronic media coverage under the program generally 
reported observing small or no effects of camera presence on 
participants in the proceedings, courtroom decorum, or the 
administration of justice.
  Despite this positive evaluation, the Judicial Conference voted in 
September 1994, to end the experiment and not to extend the camera 
coverage to all courts. This decision was made in the aftermath of the 
initial burst of television coverage of O.J. Simpson's pretrial 
hearing. Some have argued that the decision was unduly influenced by 
this outside event. In March 1996, the Judicial Conference revisited 
the issue of television cameras in the federal courts and voted to 
permit each Federal court of appeals to ``decide for itself whether to 
permit the taking of photographs and radio and television coverage of 
appellate arguments.'' Since that time, two circuit courts have enacted 
rules permitting television coverage of their arguments. It is 
significant to note that these two circuits were the two circuits which 
participated in the federal experiment with television cameras a few 
years earlier. It seems that once judges have an experience with 
cameras in their courtroom, they no longer oppose the idea.

  On September 6, 2000, the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee 
on Administrative Oversight and the Courts held a hearing titled 
``Allowing Cameras and Electronic Media in the Courtroom.'' The primary 
focus of the hearing was Senate bill S. 721, legislation introduced by 
Senators Grassley and Schumer that would give Federal judges the 
discretion to allow television coverage of court proceedings. One of 
the witnesses at the hearing, Judge Edward Becker, Chief Judge U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, spoke in opposition to the 
legislation and the presence of television cameras in the courtroom. 
The remaining five witnesses, however, including a Federal judge, a 
State judge, a law professor and other legal experts, all testified in 
favor of the legislation. They argued that cameras in the courts would 
not disrupt proceedings but would provide the kind of accountability 
and access that is fundamental to our system of government.
  In my judgment, Congress, with the concurrence of the President, or 
overriding his veto, has the authority to require the Supreme Court to 
televise its proceedings. Such a conclusion is not free from doubt and 
is highly likely to be tested with the Supreme Court, as usual, having 
the final word. As I see it, there is clearly no constitutional 
prohibition against such legislation.
  Article 3 of the Constitution states that the judicial power of the 
United States shall be vested ``in one Supreme Court and such inferior 
Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.'' 
While the Constitution specifically creates the Supreme Court, it left 
it to Congress to determine how the Court would operate. For example, 
it was Congress that fixed the number of justices on the Supreme Court 
at nine. Likewise, it was Congress that decided that any six of these 
justices are sufficient to constitute a quorum of the Court. It was 
Congress that decided that the term of the Court shall commence on the 
first Monday in October of each year, and it was Congress that 
determined the procedures to be followed whenever the Chief Justice is 
unable to perform the duties of his office.
  Beyond such basic structural and operational matters, Congress also 
controls more substantive aspects of the Supreme Court. Most 
importantly, it is Congress that in effect determines the appellate 
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Although the Constitution itself 
sets out the appellate jurisdiction of the Court, it provides that such 
jurisdiction exist ``with such exceptions and under such regulations as 
the Congress shall make.'' In the early days of the Supreme Court, 
Chief Justice Marshall, writing for the Court in Durousseau v. United 
States, recognized that the power to make exceptions to the Court's 
jurisdiction is the equivalent of the power to grant jurisdiction, 
since exceptions can be ``implied from the intent manifested by the 
affirmative description [of jurisdiction].''
  The Supreme Court recognized the power of Congress to control its 
appellate jurisdiction in a dramatic way in the famous 1868 case of Ex 
Parte McCardle. In this case, McCardle, a newspaper editor, was being 
held in custody by the military for trial on charges stemming from the 
publication of articles alleged to be libelous and incendiary. McCardle 
petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court 
heard his case but, before it rendered its opinion, Congress repealed 
the statute that gave the Supreme Court jurisdiction to hear the habeas 
appeal. In light of this Congressional action, the Supreme Court felt 
compelled to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
  Some objections have been raised to televised proceedings of the 
Supreme Court on the ground that it would subject justices to undue 
security risks. My own view is such concerns are vastly overstated. 
Well-known members of Congress, walk on a regular basis in public view 
in the Capitol complex. Other very well-known personalities, 
presidents, vice presidents, cabinet officers, all are on public view 
with even incumbent presidents exposed to risks as they mingle with the 
public. Such risks are minimal in my view given the relatively minor 
exposure that Supreme Court justices would undertake through television 
appearances.
  As I explained earlier, the Supreme Court could, of course, permit 
television through its own rule but has decided not to do so. Congress 
should be circumspect and even hesitant to impose a rule mandating the 
televising of Supreme Court proceedings and should do so only in the 
face of compelling public policy reasons. The Supreme Court has such a 
dominant role in key decision-making functions that their proceedings 
ought to be better known to the public; and, in the absence of Court 
rule, public policy would be best served by enactment of legislation 
requiring the televising of Supreme Court proceedings.
  This legislation embodies sound policy and will prove valuable to the 
public. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objective, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1768

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

     SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 45 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 678. Televising Supreme Court proceedings

       ``The Supreme Court shall permit television coverage of all 
     open sessions of the Court unless the Court decides, by a 
     vote of the majority of justices, that allowing such coverage 
     in a particular case would constitute a violation of the due 
     process rights of 1 or more of the parties before the 
     Court.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     45 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     at the end the following:

``678. Televising Supreme Court proceedings.''.

  Mr. LEAHY. I am pleased to join Senator Specter as a cosponsor of 
this bill that would require the televising of Supreme Court 
proceedings.
  In the Senate Judiciary Committee, we recently conducted open 
hearings on the nomination of John G. Roberts to be Chief Justice of 
the United States. We raised this matter with Judge Roberts. I have 
long believed in sunshine in government. Our democracy works best when 
our citizens have access to their government. I have supported efforts 
to make all three branches of our Federal Government more accessible. 
Except for rare closed sessions, the proceedings Congress and its 
committees are open to the public and carried live on cable television 
and radio. In addition, Members and committees are using the Internet 
and Web sites to make their work available to their constituencies and 
the general public.
  The work of executive branch agencies is subject to public scrutiny 
through the Freedom of Information Act, among other mechanisms. Despite 
the current administration's dramatic shift toward excessive secrecy, 
the Freedom of Information Act remains a cornerstone of democracy. It 
establishes the right of Americans to know what their government is 
doing--or not doing. As President Johnson said in

[[Page S10430]]

1966, when he signed the Freedom of Information Act into law:

       This legislation springs from one of our most essential 
     principles: A democracy works best when the people have all 
     the information the security of the Nation permits.

  Although most judicial proceedings are open to those who can travel 
to the courthouse and wait in line, emerging technology allows the 
opportunity to invite the rest of the country into the courtroom. All 
50 States have allowed some form of audio or video coverage of court 
proceedings, but Federal courts lag behind. Previously, I have 
cosponsored several bills with Senator Grassley to address this, 
including the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2005.
  The legislation I am cosponsoring today extends the tradition of 
openness to the Nation's highest Court and can help Americans be better 
informed about the important decisions that are made there and how they 
are made. This bill requires the Supreme Court to permit television 
coverage of all open sessions of the Court. At the same time, it 
protects the parties from violation of their due process rights by 
permitting a majority of the Justices to suspend this coverage for a 
particular session if due process requires.
  In 1994, the Judicial Conference concluded that the time was not ripe 
to permit cameras in the Federal courts, and rejected a recommendation 
of the Court Administration and Case Management Committee to authorize 
the photographing, recording, and broadcasting of civil proceedings in 
Federal trial and appellate courts.
  The Supreme Court is often the final arbiter of constitutional 
questions and represents the ultimate protection of individual rights 
and liberties. Allowing the public greater access to its public 
proceedings will allow Americans to evaluate for themselves the quality 
of justice in this country, and deepen their understanding of the work 
that goes on in the Court.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ENZI (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Dodd, 
        Mr. Burr, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. DeWine, and Mrs. Clinton):
  S. 1769. A bill to provide re1ief to individuals and businesses 
affected by Hurricane Katrina related to healthcare and health 
insurance coverage, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to provide 
solutions to the health care challenges wrought by Hurricane Katrina. 
As chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 
I am proud to be joined by my friend Senator Kennedy, the ranking 
minority member of the committee, in introducing this legislation. I am 
also honored that several fellow committee members are sponsoring this 
bill as well, including Senators Alexander, Dodd, Burr, Mikulski, 
DeWine, and Clinton. This bill is truly committee product in the best 
sense of the term.
  We are introducing this legislation in response to the information 
that has been shared with us from a variety of sources. Some of the 
provisions of this bill were added as a result of the testimony that we 
received during a roundtable discussion before the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor and Pensions. Others spring from the suggestions that 
were forwarded to us or were posted on our committee's Web site. Others 
came from our discussions with local, State and Federal officials who 
shared their firsthand knowledge and experience with us. Still others 
were added as a result of our visit to the area. This legislation will 
not accomplish everything that must be done, but it will provide 
another valuable step in the effort to provide a comprehensive package 
to address the needs of those whose lives were forever changed by the 
wrath of Hurricane Katrina.
  Just a few days ago, several of my colleagues and I traveled to the 
New Orleans area to see the damage that was done by the storm for 
ourselves. I don't think any of us were fully prepared for what we saw. 
As startling as the images were that we had seen in the paper and on 
television, they didn't fully portray what had happened and the reality 
that confronted us on the ground. The devastation that the storm had 
brought to the lives of those who lived there was readily apparent. It 
was a tragedy that was even worse than any of us had thought was 
possible. It will not be easy to use the limited resources we have at 
our disposal to meet the almost unlimited need, but we are all 
determined to try.
  Nationwide, there are people from the gulf coast region spread 
throughout the country who have had to rely on the kindness and 
goodwill of people they have never met before. Wyoming and so many 
other States have welcomed these people with open arms and open hearts. 
Seeing so many Americans, from all walks of life, respond as they have 
and reach out to other Americans in need, gives me a clearer picture 
than I have ever seen before of what is right with America. It is a 
scene that gives me confidence that we will be able to rebuild what was 
lost and breathe new life into the communities that were devastated by 
the storm.
  Now, here in Congress, we will continue to do our part, and one of 
the most important things we can do is to assure mothers and fathers 
all over the country that the health care needs of their family will be 
met, that they will not have to go without or navigate through a 
complex bureaucracy to get the care they need, and that their Federal 
Government has the necessary authority to respond to this crisis.
  The Public Health and Health Insurance Emergency Response Act of 2005 
will strengthen and improve America's ability to address the ongoing 
public health and mental health needs faced by the hundreds of 
thousands of people displaced by Hurricane Katrina. It will also help 
those evacuees and their employers continue to afford their health 
insurance premiums as they put their lives and their businesses back 
together.
  As we know, the public health emergency created by Hurricane Katrina 
will take months to resolve. That means we need to cut whatever Federal 
redtape might stand in the way of a long-term public health recovery 
effort.
  In this legislation, therefore, we strengthen the authority of the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services to waive laws that hinder the 
fullest possible response to a major disaster like Hurricane Katrina. 
These laws include vaccination eligibility laws and requirements 
related to State and local matching funds, as well laws that limit the 
Secretary's flexibility in designating health professional shortage 
areas.
  To ensure a comprehensive public health response in the months ahead, 
this critical legislation facilitates long-term Federal-State 
cooperation and coordination in a public health emergency, and assists 
with expanding and strengthening the health care safety net by 
increasing access to and resources for sites at which people displaced 
by Hurricane Katrina can receive primary and preventive care. It 
ensures immediate availability of mental health funding in the event of 
major disasters by directing special emergency mental health funding to 
affected areas, and directs additional outreach and assistance to 
individuals with disabilities, including funds to States during an 
emergency to ensure that individuals with disabilities have access to 
advocacy and support services.

  Additionally, the bill we are introducing today clarifies appropriate 
protocols for emergency response by requiring additional data 
collection and analysis for use in this and future responses to major 
disasters.
  Finally, my committee has also worked diligently to create a solution 
to another crisis created by Hurricane Katrina. This devastating 
natural disaster has changed lives and disrupted businesses all across 
the gulf coast of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Families and 
employers are going to need our help getting the basic necessities of 
food, water, shelter, and clothing while they decide how to move 
forward and rebuild their lives and livelihoods.
  Hundreds of thousands of the gulf coast evacuees have health 
insurance that they purchased on their own or that their employer 
provided and funded. Many of these people are now without a job, and 
many of these businesses are hanging on as they clean up and wait for 
their customers to return to the region. Some people have lost almost 
everything they owned, and now

[[Page S10431]]

they are in danger of losing their health insurance if they can't pay 
their premiums.
  Congress can and will help them. The bill we are introducing will 
provide short-term premium relief to people displaced by Hurricane 
Katrina so they can keep their private health insurance.
  Under this bill, the Department of Health and Human Services, in 
consultation with State insurance commissioners, will administer a 
program to provide 3 months of health insurance premium relief to 
individuals who have purchased their own policies, and to small 
businesses and their employees. Such individuals and businesses will be 
eligible if, as of the date of the hurricane, they held health 
insurance in counties federally designated major disaster areas and 
their ability to pay premiums has been severely disrupted. Enrollment 
in the program will occur automatically upon either nonpayment of 
premiums or if communication to an insurer or policyholder indicates 
distress.
  To facilitate swift enrollment, there is no prospective application 
process. However, the program does provide for a retrospective 
randomized audit process, whereby HHS may retroactively seek collection 
of premium assistance if such assistance was made in error.
  To complete this short-term protection for those individuals and 
businesses affected by Hurricane Katrina, the bill will prohibit 
insurers from canceling policies or raising rates during the 3-month 
emergency period.
  The Public Health and Health Insurance Emergency Response Act of 2005 
will provide immediate health insurance premium relief for individuals 
and businesses affected by Hurricane Katrina, and provide the Federal 
Government the authority it needs to respond effectively to the public 
health needs of people displaced by this terrible disaster.
  After we pass this bill, our work in response to Hurricane Katrina is 
not over. This is our emergency response. In the upcoming months, 
working with Senator Burr, the chairman of our Subcommittee on 
Bioterrorism and Public Health Preparedness, and my other committee 
colleagues, I want to examine fully our preparedness and response 
capabilities as they relate to public health, mental health, and health 
care. I also want to focus on how best to rebuild the critical health 
care and public health infrastructure that was destroyed as a result of 
Hurricane Katrina.
  These are some of the long-term challenges we must tackle. But in the 
short term, we must address the immediate needs and emergent challenges 
imposed by Hurricane Katrina. I urge my colleagues to join me as 
sponsors of the Public Health and Health Insurance Emergency Response 
Act of 2005, and I look forward to seeing the Senate pass this bill in 
the very near future.
  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. 1769

       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 Health and Health 
     Insurance Emergency Response Act of 2005''.

          TITLE I--CLARIFICATION OF A PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY

     SEC. 101. MODIFICATION TO THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC HEALTH 
                   EMERGENCY.

       Section 319 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     247d) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting before the last 
     sentence, the following: ``Any determination under this 
     section shall specify the geographic area with respect to 
     which such determination applies.''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
       ``(d) Statutory Waiver.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, if the Secretary declares a public health emergency 
     pursuant to subsection (a), the Secretary may waive the 
     following statutory requirements:
       ``(A) Reporting or administrative requirements.--In any 
     case in which the Secretary determines that, wholly or 
     partially as a result of a public health emergency that has 
     been determined pursuant to subsection (a), individuals or 
     public or private entities are unable to comply with 
     deadlines for the submission to the Secretary of data, 
     reports, or other materials, or for the completion of other 
     administrative tasks required under any law administered by 
     the Secretary, the Secretary may grant such extensions of 
     such deadlines as the circumstances may reasonably require, 
     and may waive, wholly or partially, any sanctions otherwise 
     applicable to such failure to comply.
       ``(B) Vaccinations.--With respect to section 317 of this 
     Act and section 1928 of the Social Security Act, the 
     Secretary may waive requirements related to the eligibility 
     of adults and children for participation in the program for 
     those in an area with respect to which the Secretary has 
     declared a public health emergency during the period of such 
     declaration.
       ``(C) Extension of availability of funds.--If, as a result 
     of a public health emergency declared pursuant to subsection 
     (a), the Secretary determines that the Secretary is unable to 
     obligate funds for a particular fiscal year, such funds shall 
     remain available for an additional 180 days.
       ``(D) Matching requirements.--In any case in which the 
     Secretary determines that an entity in an area with respect 
     to which the Secretary has declared a public health emergency 
     pursuant to subsection (a) is unable to provide funds 
     required as a condition of Federal matching under any 
     provision of the Public Health Service Act, the Secretary may 
     grant a waiver of such funding requirement for the fiscal 
     years covered by such emergency declaration. To the extent 
     that additional amounts have been appropriated for programs 
     that have received a waiver under this subparagraph as a 
     result of Hurricane Katrina, the Secretary may make such 
     additional amounts available to entities on a pro rata basis.
       ``(E) Mobilizing resources to provide access.--If the 
     Secretary declares a public health emergency pursuant to 
     subsection (a) with respect to an area, the Secretary may 
     deem such area as a health professional shortage area (as 
     defined under section 332(a)), a medically underserved 
     population (as defined under section 330(b)(3)), or a 
     medically underserved area or community during the period of 
     such declaration.
       ``(e) Licensing and Liability Provisions.--If the Secretary 
     declares a public health emergency pursuant to subsection (a) 
     with respect to an area, the Secretary may waive the 
     application of licensing requirements applicable to 
     physicians and other health care professionals who are 
     volunteering to provide medical services (within their scope 
     of practice) within such area as part of a coordinated 
     emergency response if such physicians or health care 
     professionals have equivalent licensing in good standing in 
     another State and are not affirmatively excluded from 
     practice in that State or in any State a part of which is 
     included in the designated public health emergency area. A 
     physician or other health care professional described in 
     section 2811(d)(1) shall be covered by the provisions of 
     section 2811(d)(2), including with respect to liability.
       ``(f) FDA Waiver Authority.--If the Secretary declares a 
     public health emergency pursuant to subsection (a) with 
     respect to an area, the Secretary may--
       ``(1) waive the requirements in the second sentence of 
     section 304(h)(1)(B) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
     Act;
       ``(2) waive the requirement of section 304(h)(2) of such 
     Act that limits the administrative detention of foods to not 
     more than 30 days; and
       ``(3) waive the requirement of section 304(h)(4)(A) of such 
     Act relating to the timing of an opportunity for an informal 
     hearing upon the appeal of a detention order.

     Under paragraph (1), the Secretary may not waive the 
     requirements of sections 1.392 or 1.393 of title 21, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, or any successor regulations thereto.
       ``(g) Report.--Not later than 2 days after granting any 
     waiver under subsection (d), (e), or (f), the Secretary shall 
     notify the appropriate committees of Congress of such action. 
     The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register a notice 
     of such waiver in a timely manner. Such notification shall 
     include, if applicable--
       ``(1) the specific provisions of law to be waived or 
     modified;
       ``(2) the rationale for such waiver or modification;
       ``(3) the geographic area in which the waiver or 
     modification will apply; and
       ``(4) the period of time, not to exceed the period of the 
     emergency, for which the waiver or modification will be in 
     effect.
       ``(h) Authority for Retroactive Application.--A waiver or 
     modification described in subsections (d), (e), and (f), at 
     the discretion of the Secretary, may be made retroactive to 
     the beginning of the emergency period or any subsequent date 
     in such period as specified by the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 102. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING THE HURRICANE KATRINA-
                   RELATED PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) with respect to the public health emergency declared 
     under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     247d) resulting from Hurricane Katrina, the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services, in coordination with other Federal 
     entities (including the Federal Emergency Management 
     Association, the Department of Defense, the Department of 
     Veterans' Affairs, Environmental Protection Agency, and the 
     National Disaster Medical System), State and local 
     governments, and public and private sector entities, where 
     appropriate, should ensure the following:

[[Page S10432]]

       (A) grants and funding should be provided to address 
     ongoing emergency responses and recovery;
       (B) the provision of health services including medical 
     specialty services, health-related social services including 
     protection and advocacy services, other appropriate human 
     services, and appropriate auxiliary services to respond to 
     the needs of the survivors of the public health emergency;
       (C) clinicians deployed as part of the emergency response 
     efforts who are licensed and certified within their 
     respective State and in good standing within their State 
     should be afforded appropriate liability protections;
       (D) clinicians deployed as part of the emergency response 
     who are licensed or otherwise certified in their respective 
     State and in good standing within their State should not need 
     to fulfill additional licensure or certification requirements 
     in areas declared to be part of a public health emergency;
       (E) individuals within the public health emergency areas 
     should be able to access quality mental health and substance 
     abuse services including services to reduce and identify 
     individuals at risk of suicide and post-traumatic stress 
     disorder and provide appropriate interventions;
       (F) environmental teams should be deployed to provide 
     assessments and environmental controls for areas within the 
     public health emergency;
       (G) social services, including protection and advocacy 
     services and access to domestic violence shelters, should be 
     extended to those within the public health emergency areas;
       (H) communication resources should be available to those 
     displaced by the hurricane including access to 2-1-1 call 
     centers;
       (I) support services including supports, equipment, 
     supplies, medications, and other types of assistance (such as 
     those provided through the Developmental Disabilities 
     Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000) should be 
     available to vulnerable populations including the elderly and 
     individuals with disabilities;
       (J) real time electronic surveillance, diagnosis, and 
     treatment of epidemic, re-emerging, and emerging diseases, 
     including a functioning diagnostic laboratory, should be 
     provided for those dislocated as a result of Hurricane 
     Katrina and first-responders;
       (K) funding should be provided to help healthcare 
     facilities, medical research facilities, community health 
     centers, and other essential public health and health care 
     infrastructure components to assist them in the ongoing 
     response efforts, to clean up their facilities, or to 
     rebuild;
       (L) coordination and minimizing the duplication of Federal, 
     State, and local response and recovery efforts;
       (M) funding should be provided to ensure that the Strategic 
     National Stockpile is able to provide and appropriately 
     deploy the necessary drugs, vaccines, and other biological 
     products, medical devices, and other supplies needed to 
     address acute exacerbations of chronic illness as well as 
     acute injuries and illness resulting from Hurricane Katrina;
       (N) funding should be provided to the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health 
     to pay for needed communications, including public service 
     announcements on radio and television, to provide for 
     additional personnel, and to provide needed health and safety 
     training and resources to affected workers and employers;
       (O) none of the funds provided by the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services in response to Hurricane Katrina should 
     made available to entities that have been indicted for 
     abandoning patients during the disaster period; and
       (P) the Department of Health and Human Services should 
     conduct an effective ongoing program to monitor the health of 
     survivors of Hurricane Katrina and of workers and volunteers 
     involved in rescue, response, and rebuilding efforts due to 
     Hurricane Katrina, and that such a program should include 
     screening for health conditions (including mental health 
     conditions) and appropriate referrals; and
       (2) the current public health emergency declared by 
     Secretary Leavitt relating to Hurricane Katrina under such 
     section 319 should be extended beyond 90 days.

                     TITLE II--HEALTHCARE RESPONSE

     SEC. 201. ASSISTANCE TO STATES IN A PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY.

       Section 311(c)(2) of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 243(c)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(2) The'' and inserting the following:
       ``(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) If the Secretary declares a public health emergency 
     under section 319, the 6 month period described in the first 
     sentence of subparagraph (A) may be extended for a period of 
     not to exceed 18 months with respect to assistance to 
     geographic areas that are the subject of such declaration.''.

     SEC. 202. STRENGTHENING THE HEALTHCARE SAFETY NET.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services may temporarily provide (for the 
     period for which a determination of public health emergency 
     is in effect under section 319 of the Public Health Service 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 247d)) with respect to Hurricane Katrina that 
     any health center or facility providing primary and 
     preventive care that--
       (1) is located in an area to which such determination 
     applies, and
       (2) treats individuals displaced by Hurricane Katrina;

     shall receive reimbursement for such treatment from Federal 
     health programs at the same rate at which a Federally 
     qualified health center (as defined in section 1905(l)(2)(B) 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1596d(l)(2)(B))) would 
     receive such reimbursement and shall be eligible to receive 
     funds under section 330 of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 245b) with respect to services furnished to 
     individuals displaced by Hurricane Katrina if additional 
     funds are made available under such section for Hurricane 
     Katrina response efforts.

     SEC. 203. MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS.

       (a) Ensuring Funding for Mental Health in Times of National 
     Crisis.--Section 501(m) of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 290aa(m)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(4) Existing funding.--For purposes of carrying out this 
     subsection, amounts appropriated under this title for 
     emergency response, as provided for in this section, for 
     fiscal years 2005 and 2006 shall remain available until 
     expended or until a public health emergency as declared by 
     the Secretary no longer exists.''.
       (b) Strengthening Access to Mental Health Services in an 
     Emergency.--Section 520F of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 290bb-37) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Health Center.--In this section, the term `health 
     center' has the meaning given such term in section 330, and 
     includes community health centers and community mental health 
     centers.'';
       (2) in subsection (c), by adding at the end the following: 
     ``With respect to a declaration of a public health emergency 
     under section 319, the Secretary shall, in awarding such 
     grants, ensure that priority is given to States and 
     localities that are most affected by such emergency.'';
       (3) in subsection (e)(2)--
       (A) in clause (i), by striking ``individuals'' and all that 
     follows through the semicolon and inserting ``individuals, 
     including children, who may be in need of emergency mental 
     health services, including individuals at risk of developing 
     a mental illness, including Post Traumatic Stress 
     Disorder;''; and
       (B) in clause (iii), by inserting ``or at risk of 
     developing'' after ``individual with''; and
       (4) in subsection (g), by striking ``2003'' and inserting 
     ``2006''.

     SEC. 204. ASSISTANCE FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES.

       (a) Assessment and Response.--
       (1) Definitions.--
       (A) Emergency shelter.--The term ``emergency shelter'' 
     means an emergency shelter for persons described in 
     subparagraph (C)(ii).
       (B) Individual with a disability.--The term ``individual 
     with a disability'' has the meaning given the term in section 
     3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     12102).
       (C) Individual affected by hurricane katrina.--The term 
     ``individual with a disability affected by Hurricane 
     Katrina'' means a person who is--
       (i) an individual with a disability, or a family member of 
     an individual with a disability; and
       (ii) a person who resided on August 22, 2005, in an area in 
     which the President has declared that a major disaster 
     exists, in accordance with section 401 of the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5170), related to Hurricane Katrina.
       (2) Assistance.--An entity that receives financial 
     assistance under title I of the Developmental Disabilities 
     Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 15001 et 
     seq.) may use a portion of such financial assistance to--
       (A) determine the location and status of individuals 
     affected by Hurricane Katrina, who are transferred from 
     emergency shelters to long-term care facilities (including 
     nursing homes and group homes), intermediate care facilities 
     for individuals with mental retardation, hospitals, 
     correctional institutions, and other similar locations; and
       (B) assess and respond to the needs of individuals affected 
     by Hurricane Katrina to ensure that the individuals receive 
     necessary services, supports, and other types of assistance.
       (b) Oversight and Disaster Assistance.--Subtitle C of title 
     I of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of 
     Rights Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 15041 et seq.) is amended by 
     inserting after section 144 the following:

     ``SEC. 144A. OVERSIGHT AND DISASTER ASSISTANCE.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Emergency shelter.--The term `emergency shelter' 
     means an emergency shelter for persons described in paragraph 
     (3)(B).
       ``(2) Individual with a disability.--The term `individual 
     with a disability' has the meaning given the term in section 
     3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     12102).
       ``(3) Individual affected by a major disaster.--The term 
     `individual affected by a major disaster' means a person who 
     is--
       ``(A) an individual with a disability; and
       ``(B) a person who resided in an area in which the 
     Secretary has declared a public health emergency under 
     section 319 of the Public Health Service Act, 7 days before 
     the declaration.

[[Page S10433]]

       ``(4) Public health emergency.--The term `public health 
     emergency' means a public health emergency as designated 
     under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act.
       ``(b) Oversight.--
       ``(1) Grants.--
       ``(A) In general.--In a case in which the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services has declared that a public health 
     emergency exists for a geographic area, and as a result 
     individuals affected by a major disaster are placed in an 
     emergency shelter in a State, the Secretary may make a grant 
     to the system for that State.
       ``(B) Use of funds.--A system that receives a grant under 
     subparagraph (A) shall use the funds made available through 
     the grant to--
       ``(i) establish a registry to identify and maintain 
     information about such individuals who are in such emergency 
     shelter;
       ``(ii) track the transfers of such individuals from such 
     emergency shelter to community and non-community settings; 
     and
       ``(iii) provide oversight at such emergency shelter to 
     assure that such individuals are receiving necessary 
     services, supports, and other types of assistance.
       ``(2) Coordination.--In carrying out activities under 
     paragraph (1), the system shall coordinate the activities 
     with the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and 
     Response in the Department of Homeland Security, and with any 
     nonprofit agency (such as the American Red Cross) providing 
     assistance through an emergency shelter described in 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(c) Access.--As soon as practicable after the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services has declared a public health 
     emergency for an area, and as a result individuals affected 
     by the emergency are placed in an emergency shelter in a 
     State, the Commissioner of the Administration on 
     Developmental Disabilities shall notify each emergency 
     shelter in the State receiving such individuals that staff of 
     the system for the State shall have authority to enter the 
     shelter, and shall have access to the individuals affected by 
     the emergency residing in that shelter, to provide 
     information related to services, supports, and other types of 
     assistance for, and to protect the human, service, and legal 
     rights of, individuals affected by the emergency residing in 
     that shelter.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out subsection (b) 
     $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 and such sums as may be 
     necessary for fiscal year 2007.''.

     SEC. 205. LIABILITY AND LICENSURE AWARENESS PROMOTION FOR 
                   HEALTH VOLUNTEERS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall utilize the Internet and other appropriate means to 
     disseminate to the public information on health professional 
     liability coverage and licensure requirements for 
     intermittent disaster response personnel (as described in 
     section 2811(d)(1) of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 300hh-11(d)(1))) in areas in which a public health 
     emergency have been declared under section 319 of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 247d).
       (b) Type of Information.--The information to be provided 
     under subsection (a) shall, in the case of a State where 
     health professional licensure requirements have been waived, 
     include--
       (1) whether and how intermittent disaster response 
     personnel may be able to receive certain liability 
     protections as described in section 2811(d)(2) of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300hh-(d)(2)), or under 
     applicable provisions of State law;
       (2) the possible limitations of such coverage and 
     protections; and
       (3) other information needed to enable health professionals 
     to make an informed decision about providing volunteer health 
     services.

                    TITLE III--RESEARCH AND REPORTS

     SEC. 301. MONITORING THE HEALTHCARE, MENTAL HEALTH, AND 
                   PUBLIC HEALTH RESPONSE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, acting through a public service non-profit research 
     and analysis firm, shall provide for an immediate and 
     independent review (through the immediate collection of data 
     and conduct of analyses) of the lessons learned from the 
     Federal, State and local public health, mental health, and 
     medical care planning, preparedness, and response to 
     Hurricane Katrina.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of the study under subsection (a) 
     is to collect available relevant data, through site visits, 
     reviews of medical and epidemiological records, interviews 
     with individuals residing in an area in which a public health 
     emergency has been declared under section 319 of the Public 
     Health Service Act as a result of Hurricane Katrina, and 
     interviews with Federal, State, and local public health, 
     mental health services, and medical officials. Such 
     interviews shall be conducted in a manner that, to the extent 
     practicable, does not interfere with the delivery of patient 
     care and services.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall submit to the Committee on Health, Education, 
     Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Emergency and Commerce of the House of Representatives, a 
     report concerning the lessons learned (as described in 
     subsection (a)).
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $2,000,000 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 302. REPORT ON REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND FUNDING 
                   FORMULAS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall submit to Congress a report on the specific 
     regulatory requirements and funding formulas under the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) that would assist 
     the Secretary in responding to a public health emergency (as 
     declared under section 319 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 247d)).
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section.

     SEC. 303. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES INSPECTOR 
                   GENERAL AUDIT AND REPORT.

       (a) In General.--The Inspector General of the Department of 
     Health and Human Services (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Inspector General'') shall conduct an audit and 
     investigation of each program carried out by the Department 
     of Health and Human Services that includes response and 
     recovery activities related to Hurricane Katrina.
       (b) Weekly Report.--Not less frequently than once a week, 
     the Inspector General shall provide a report to the Committee 
     on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
     Representatives listing the audits and investigations 
     initiated pursuant to subsection (a).
       (c) Status Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date 
     of enactment of this section, and biannually thereafter until 
     the audits and investigations described in subsection (a) are 
     complete, the Inspector General shall report to the Committee 
     on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
     Representatives on the full status of the activities of the 
     Inspector General under this section.
       (d) Cooperative Ventures.--In carrying out this section, 
     the Inspector General is encouraged to enter into cooperative 
     ventures with Inspectors General of other Federal agencies.

                  TITLE IV--HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE

     SEC. 401. TEMPORARY EMERGENCY HEALTH COVERAGE ASSISTANCE FOR 
                   BUSINESS AND INDIVIDUALS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     (referred to in this section as the ``Secretary''), in 
     consultation with the insurance commissioners of those States 
     contained in whole or in part in the Hurricane Katrina 
     disaster area, shall establish a program to provide emergency 
     health coverage continuation relief through the provision of 
     direct payments of health insurance premiums or continuation 
     assistance on behalf of eligible businesses and their 
     employees and purchasers of individual health insurance 
     coverage.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Eligible individuals.--The term ``eligible individual'' 
     means an individual (and the family dependents of such 
     individual as may be covered under the health insurance 
     coverage in which such individual is enrolled)--
       (A) who is a citizen, national, or qualified alien as 
     defined in section 431(b) of the Personal Responsibility and 
     Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 
     1641(b));
       (B) whose permanent residence as of August 29, 2005 was 
     located in a Hurricane Katrina disaster area;
       (C) who was covered under individual (non-group) health 
     insurance coverage, including a policy operated pursuant to a 
     qualified high risk pool (as defined in section 2744 of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-44)), on August 
     29, 2005; and
       (D) whose ability to continue such coverage was severely 
     impaired as a result of hurricane-related disruption in a 
     Hurricane Katrina disaster area.
       (2) Eligible businesses.--The term ``eligible business'' 
     means a corporation, sole proprietorship, or partnership that 
     employs not more than 50 employees and that--
       (A) operated as of August 29, 2005 in a Hurricane Katrina 
     disaster area;
       (B) offered coverage under a group health plan (as defined 
     in section 733(a)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1191b(a)(1))) on August 29, 
     2005 to employees in a Hurricane Katrina disaster area; and
       (C) had its ability to continue coverage under such plan 
     severely impaired as a result of disruption of the sponsor's 
     business activity in the Hurricane Katrina disaster area.
       (3) Continuation assistance.--The term ``continuation 
     assistance'' means, in the case of an eligible business that 
     offers health insurance coverage under a self-insured 
     arrangement, assistance in paying administrative services 
     fees, claims costs, stop-loss premiums, and any amounts 
     required to be paid by employees to participate in the 
     arrangement.
       (4) Hurricane katrina disaster area.--The term ``Hurricane 
     Katrina disaster area'' means a parish in the State of 
     Louisiana, a county in the State of Mississippi, or a county 
     in the State of Alabama, for which a major disaster has been 
     declared in accordance with section 401 of the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5170) as a result of Hurricane Katrina and which the 
     President has determined, before September 11, 2005, warrants 
     both individual and public assistance from the Federal 
     Government under such Act.
       (c) Health Coverage Continuation Relief.--

[[Page S10434]]

       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall design and implement 
     the program under subsection (a) in a manner that enables 
     eligible individuals and eligible businesses to be eligible 
     for direct premium reimbursement or continuation assistance 
     to be paid by the Secretary on behalf of such individual or 
     business directly to the health insurance issuer or 
     administrative services provider involved. In the case of an 
     eligible business, premium reimbursement shall include the 
     premium shares of both the employer and employees, as 
     applicable.
       (2) Limitation.--Subject to paragraph (3), in no case shall 
     the value of the assistance provided under the program under 
     this section, with respect to an individual or business, 
     exceed 100 percent of the applicable premium for coverage or 
     continuation assistance for the period of coverage involved, 
     including, with respect to employer coverage, the employer 
     and employees' share of premiums, if applicable.
       (3) Enrollment.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall establish an expedited 
     process for the enrollment of eligible individuals and 
     eligible businesses in the program under this section.
       (B) Duty of secretary upon receipt of notice.--The 
     Secretary, upon receipt of a notice under subsection (f)(2), 
     shall enroll the eligible individual or eligible business 
     involved in the program under this section.
       (C) Duty of issuer.--A group health plan, or health 
     insurance insurer with respect to such a plan, shall make a 
     reasonable effort to notify an eligible individual or 
     eligible business--
       (i) of the automatic enrollment of such individual or 
     business in the program under subparagraph (B);
       (ii) that, if it is later determined that the means of 
     support of such individual, or the ability of such business 
     to continue health insurance coverage, was not severely 
     disrupted (as determined subject to a randomized 
     retrospective audit process), such individual or business may 
     be required at a later date to repay the program for the 
     amount of premiums or continuation assistance paid on its 
     behalf; and
       (iii) that such individual or business may elect to decline 
     enrollment, or cancel enrollment, in the program by notifying 
     the health insurance issuer or administrative service 
     provider involved.
       (d) Retrospective Audit Authority.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide for the 
     application of a randomized retrospective auditing process to 
     the program under this section by a date that is not earlier 
     than November 1, 2005.
       (2) Repayment of funds.--If the Secretary determines, 
     pursuant to the audit process under paragraph (1), that an 
     individual or business that was enrolled in the program under 
     this section did not meet the disruption or other eligibility 
     requirements provided for in paragraph (1) or (2) of 
     subsection (b), the Secretary shall seek the repayment of 
     funds paid on behalf of such individual or business. Such 
     repayments shall be made with no interest or late penalty to 
     accrue prior to the commencement of a repayment period which 
     shall begin not earlier than the date that is 3 months after 
     the date on which a determination and notice of non-
     eligibility is provided.
       (3) No double payments.--The Secretary shall take 
     appropriate actions to ensure that health insurance issuers 
     do not retain double payments in instances where businesses 
     or individuals pay premiums for any period for which payments 
     have already been made under the program under this section.
       (e) Emergency Period.--Payments under the program under 
     this section shall be made only for premiums due during the 
     period beginning on August 29, 2005 and expiring 3 months 
     after such date. Prior to the expiration of such period, the 
     Secretary may make recommendations to Congress regarding any 
     reasonably determined need to extend such emergency period.
       (f) Non-Cancellation of Health Insurance Coverage.--
       (1) In general.--During the 3-month emergency period 
     described in subsection (e), health insurance issuers that 
     accept payments under the program under this section shall be 
     prohibited from canceling or terminating health insurance 
     coverage or, in the case of administrative services 
     providers, refusing to process claims under a self-insured 
     arrangement. Such health insurance issuers and administrative 
     service providers shall be prohibited during such period from 
     increasing any amounts due pursuant to such coverage or 
     arrangements that were not previously scheduled pursuant to a 
     contract prior to August 29, 2005.
       (2) Notification.--To be eligible to receive payments under 
     ths program under this section, a health insurance issuer or 
     administrative services provider shall notify the Secretary--
       (A) not earlier than 31 days following the nonpayment of a 
     scheduled premium payment from an individual or business 
     policyholder in a Hurricane Katrina disaster area, of the 
     fact of such nonpayment (or nonreimbursement of claims under 
     a self-insured arrangement); or
       (B) following a communication to the health insurance 
     insurer or administrative service provider by an individual 
     or business reasonably indicating eligibility for assistance 
     under such program, of the fact of such communication.
       (g) Expedited Rulemaking.--The Secretary shall utilize 
     expedited rulemaking procedures to carry out this section.
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2006.

     SEC. 402. AUTHORITY TO POSTPONE CERTAIN DEADLINES RELATED TO 
                   INDIVIDUAL HEALTH COVERAGE BY REASON OF 
                   PRESIDENTIALLY DECLARED DISASTER OR TERRORISTIC 
                   OR MILITARY ACTION.

       (a) In General.--Title XXVII of the Public Health Service 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 2793. AUTHORITY TO POSTPONE CERTAIN DEADLINES BY 
                   REASON OF PRESIDENTIALLY DECLARED DISASTER OR 
                   TERRORISTIC OR MILITARY ACTION.

       ``In the case of a plan offered through the individual 
     market, or any health insurance issuer, participant, 
     beneficiary, or other person with respect to such plan, 
     affected by a Presidentially declared disaster (as defined in 
     section 1033(h)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) or a 
     terroristic or military action (as defined in section 
     692(c)(2) of such Code), the Secretary may, notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, prescribe, by notice or 
     otherwise, a period of up to 1 year which may be disregarded 
     in determining the date by which any action is required or 
     permitted to be completed under this title. No plan shall be 
     treated as failing to be operated in accordance with the 
     terms of the plan solely as a result of disregarding any 
     period by reason of the preceding sentence.''.
       (b) Application of Amendment.--The Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services shall implement the amendment made by 
     subsection (a) in the same manner in which the Secretary of 
     Labor implements section 518 of the Employee Retirement 
     Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1148) with respect to 
     group health plans.

                     TITLE V--EMERGENCY DESIGNATION

     SEC. 501. EMERGENCY DESIGNATION.

       Any amount provided under this Act is designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 
     95 (109th Congress).

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, I join Senator Enzi in introducing 
a relief bill that will bring aid to hundreds of thousands of people 
affected by Hurricane Katrina. I commend Chairman Enzi and our 
colleagues on the Committee for moving so quickly to meet the many 
urgent health needs of the victims.
  We have all seen the images of despair of those who felt so abandoned 
by their government in their time of need. We have also seen hope 
reborn in the faces of families reunited after surviving this massive 
catastrophe. We have seen great heroism too, not only in the 
spectacular images of rescues by helicopter, but in the quiet courage 
of neighbors helping neighbors survive the heavy winds and rising 
waters.
  It's been three weeks since Hurricane Katrina brought havoc to the 
Gulf Coast. Every day, we have a clearer picture of physical 
destruction of beloved American communities, and a deeper understanding 
of what our fellow citizens have lost. Survivors have begun the slow 
and difficult process of rebuilding their lives. Most have , only the 
clothing they wore as they tried to cope with the hurricane.
  Another picture is also emerging--a report card filled with failing 
grades for government at every level in the preparations and response 
for such an emergency. The natural disaster was compounded many fold by 
the inadequate response, despite the bravery and sacrifice of relief 
workers, rescue personnel, and the hurricane survivors themselves.
  With new destruction in Texas and Louisiana from Hurricane Rita, we 
had little time to learn from these past lessons. Already, we responded 
sooner by insisting on the evacuation of people in flood-prone areas 
and shipping food and supplies quickly into the hard hit areas. 
Unfortunately, this means that many Hurricane Katrina evacuees had to 
relocate again. They halted their individual rebuilding processes, and 
once again, now find themselves in unfamiliar surroundings dealing with 
anguish, fear, loss, and uncertainty.
  The recent evacuations reveal additional lessons to be learned. 
Massive gridlock on evacuation routes, gasoline shortages, and 
overwhelmed airports are just the beginning of many challenges that lie 
ahead. We need to learn faster and learn better, so that we can prepare 
more effectively before disasters happen, react more effectively as 
they take place, and respond more effectively in the aftermath.
  I commend Chairman Enzi for convening two roundtable discussions that 
provided impressive expertise about what can be done immediately to 
protect the health of those affected by the hurricane and help them 
begin to rebuild their lives.

[[Page S10435]]

  Our committee listened carefully and prepared a relief package to 
address the immediate health needs of the survivors for the next 90 
days. We have a long road ahead of us, but this bill is an important 
start. As the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita continues to 
unfold, we will learn of additional needs, and be reminded again and 
again that we have much more to do to improve the nation's ability to 
respond to disasters, whether man-made or natural.
  In this legislation, we are focusing on what we can do to immediately 
remove the perennial red tape and make sure that each and every 
survivor has access to good health care. For those with health 
insurance, the bill provides temporary assistance on premiums, so that 
individuals and small businesses affected by the hurricanes maintain 
their existing coverage. I'm hopeful we can work together to extend 
similar help to persons in larger firms who need temporary assistance.
  We also authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to 
extend insurance deadlines, so that hurricane survivors have time to 
make important decisions about their coverage.
  In preventing disease outbreaks and epidemics, time is of the 
essence. The bill removes barriers to existing public health programs, 
such as by allowing the Vaccines for Children Program to contribute to 
the vaccination campaign already under way, in order to prevent 
outbreaks of disease in responders and in persons relying on the same 
shelter.
  It is especially urgent to monitor the survivors and responders, in 
order to identify both the short-term and the long-term risks they 
face. I will continue to work with my colleagues to authorize the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services to work closely with other 
agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, to begin 
monitoring health outcomes and exposure to environmental toxins, and to 
develop a registry of people screened, so that we can identify long-
term consequences.
  As we focus on preventing and treating physical illness, we must not 
ignore the emotional challenges ahead for both survivors and 
responders. Thousands are facing the silent battle of coping with 
bereavement and catastrophe. All are at risk for post-traumatic stress 
disorder. Today, we are reauthorizing the emergency mental health 
services program of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration's and giving priority to awarding its grants to states 
and areas most affected by the hurricanes.
  This measure is only the beginning. It ends restrictions on existing 
Federal programs, so that we can help immediately with the relief 
efforts and expand access to health care for the survivors.
  I'm encouraged by how well our colleagues have worked together to 
rapidly develop this relief package, and I urge the Majority Leader and 
the full Senate to make passing this legislation a priority and bring 
help to the thousands affected by the hurricane.
  I'm also optimistic that our bipartisan cooperation here will lead to 
further relief measures that fully address the longer term health needs 
of the victims, and prevent the kind of mistakes that happened in 
connection with Katrina and Rita from happening again.
  Congress has a major responsibility to help the survivors of this 
tragic ordeal rebuild their communities and their lives. Today, we make 
a clear commitment to the survivors. Our promise to them should not 
simply be to turn back the clock a month or two--it should be to 
fulfill the true promise of the American Dream by committing ourselves 
to better health, better education and better job opportunities for 
survivors, and for all Americans as well.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. OBAMA (for himself, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Kerry, 
        and Mr. Levin):
  S. 1770. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
for advance payment of the earned income tax credit and the child tax 
credit for 2005 in order to provide needed funds to victims of 
Hurricane Katrina and to stimulate local economies; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the 
``Hurricane Katrina Fast-Track Refunds for Working Families Act of 
2005,'' a bill I am introducing with Senators Murray, Corzine, Kerry, 
and Levin to accelerate the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax 
Credit for some of the neediest victims of Hurricane Katrina.
  A few weeks ago, I visited some of the victims who had been evacuated 
to the Reliant Center in Houston. These families have nothing left. 
Imagine having nothing left. All their belongings have been destroyed 
or washed away and most of their jobs have simply vanished.
  We have done a lot of good work here in the Senate so far to bring 
tax relief and emergency support to these families. And many of us are 
hard at work now developing strategies for the long-term rebuilding of 
the Gulf Coast in such a way that doesn't re-create the poverty and 
inequality of the past but instead builds a more hopeful region with 
greater opportunity for all of its residents.
  But there is more we can do quickly to help affected families 
reestablish and resettle their lives and also to stimulate their local 
economies. In the past we have accelerated tax refunds with the goal of 
economic stimulus. In 2001, Congress directed the IRS to provide an 
``advance tax rebate'' of 2001 taxes, and, in 2003, Congress 
accelerated the Child Credit. Now, with the dual goals of economic 
stimulus and support for needy Americans, we should do it again.
  Fast-tracking refunds will put money into the hands of parents that 
they can use for food, clothing, housing, transportation, medical 
services--whatever they need. How they spend the money is up to them. 
But it's up to us to make sure they get it as soon as possible. It's up 
to us to make sure the necessary outreach, systems, and delivery 
mechanisms are in place.
  And that's what this legislation does. It directs the Secretary of 
the Treasury to refund or credit eligible taxpayers from the affected 
region as rapidly as possible and to take the steps necessary to get 
the funds into the hands of eligible recipients. Companion legislation 
has been introduced by Reps. Emanuel, Melancon, Taylor, and Lewis in 
the House of Representatives.
  I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in supporting this bill 
now so we can quickly bring relief and support to those who have 
nothing left. The Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit are 
designed to support working families with children. Let's fast track 
this support to help these families get back on their feet and help 
their communities rebuild themselves even stronger than before.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ENZI (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 1771. A bill to express the sense of Congress and to improve 
reporting with respect to the safety of workers in the response and 
recovery activities related to Hurricane Katrina, and for other 
purposes; read the first time.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Katrina Worker 
Safety and Filing Flexibility Act of 2005.
  In the wake of Hurricane Katrina we face a nearly unprecedented 
recovery and reconstruction process along our Gulf Coast. This is a 
challenge that we will meet. We are a people that always act with 
strength and purposefulness when circumstances such as this demand.
  While we undertake this massive effort, we must bear in mind the 
safety of the men and women who will be on the front lines of recovery 
and reconstruction. These individuals will face numerous and uncommon 
worksite hazards; and ones with which they will have little training 
and experience.
  To address this situation, the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration has deployed its safety and health professionals to the 
affected areas to provide necessary technical assistance. Their efforts 
in this regard are being guided by the Worker Health and Safety Annex 
contained in the National Response Plan as adopted by the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  I am pleased today to be introducing this legislation with my 
distinguished colleague and ranking member of the Committee, Senator 
Kennedy. He and I share a commitment to protecting the health and 
safety of all workers, including those engaged in the hurricane 
recovery effort.

[[Page S10436]]

  The legislation we are introducing today not only encourages the 
implementation of all aspects of the Worker Safety Annex, it encourages 
OSHA to play a central role in communicating the nature of these unique 
worksite hazards, and in cooperating with State, local and tribal 
governments, as well as other Federal agencies to enhance the safety of 
recovery and reconstruction personnel. In addition, the legislation 
grants the Secretary of Labor authority to extend the deadline for 
filing certain forms with the Department until March of 2006 in light 
of the difficulties in meeting any earlier deadlines as a result of the 
hurricane.
  We believe the bill is an important step in providing the necessary 
protection to recovery and reconstruction workers; and providing the 
necessary degree of flexibility with regard to required Federal 
filings.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today Senator Enzi and I are introducing 
legislation to protect the workers who are laboring to clean up the 
Gulf Coast after its recent disasters.
  The heroism of America's workers in the wake of Hurricane Katrina is 
unparalleled. As they did in response to our national disaster on 
September 11, thousands of men and women have been working around the 
clock to find and rescue families, to provide them with food and 
shelter, and to evacuate them from the area. In the coming days 
thousands more will be on the ground reestablishing communications, 
cleaning up debris, restoring services, and rebuilding infrastructure. 
They are now facing additional challenges because of the new damage and 
flooding from Hurricane Rita, but they continue to make progress in 
cleaning and rebuilding New Orleans and the entire disaster area.
  This work is critical, but it is also dangerous. Many of these tasks 
pose significant safety and health threats: conditions in New Orleans 
are of particular concern, where the widespread flooding has led to 
widespread biological and chemical contamination. We learn more each 
day about the oil spills, the Superfund sites, and exposure to E. coli 
that these workers are facing. It is imperative that workers and 
volunteers be protected from these serious hazards.
  That is why our legislation includes language to protect the health 
and safety of workers. It urges OSHA and other health and safety 
agencies to follow the Worker Health and Safety Annex protections of 
our National Response Plan. This includes keeping track of workers who 
are being exposed, coordinating health and safety training for workers 
and volunteers, and monitoring the hazards that workers and volunteers 
are facing. It also authorizes funds to be spent for additional 
personnel, enforcement of health and safety standards, critical safety 
information for workers and employers, and safety and health training. 
I hope that as Congress continues to allocate money for disaster relief 
that we also provide money to protect our workers and volunteers.
  We need to track how our efforts are working, and so we have provided 
for Congressional oversight. OSHA will be required to brief the HELP 
Committee in six months, and provide a written report within nine 
months, so we can see what progress has been made and what still needs 
to be done. We have also mandated oversight by the Executive Branch. 
The Inspector General of the Department of Labor will audit and 
investigate the Department's efforts to implement the protections 
established in this bill, and will report back to both Houses of 
Congress on the success of these response and recovery efforts.
  Finally, the bill also provides temporary relief to many companies, 
unions and individuals who are required to meet financial and other 
reporting obligations during the next few months, but cannot satisfy 
these obligations due to record destruction and other problems 
associated with Katrina.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. DeMint, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. 
        Voinovich, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Thune, and Mr. Bond):
  S. 1772. A bill to streamline the refinery permitting process, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, by design, politicians are largely a 
reactive bunch--our constituents voted us in to our offices to 
represent their interests, and when they are unhappy we too are 
unhappy. One issue that certainly makes all constituents unhappy or 
even angry is high fuel prices. Therefore, policymakers at all levels 
of government have been struggling with ways to address high prices--
some have advocated for repealing fuel taxes, the Administration 
reacted in many critically important and helpful ways such as releasing 
oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. After Hurricane Katrina 
disabled a large portion of our refining capacity and Rita threatened 
an additional 27.5 percent, several members have talked about the need 
to build new refineries.
  In May 2004--Before the hurricanes, and before EPACT 2005 (The Energy 
Policy Act of 2005), the Environment & Public Works Committee, which I 
chair, considered the challenges facing the refining industry. At that 
hearing, we learned how the industry has been struggling to balance the 
public's increasing demand for cheap transportation fuels while also 
meeting legal and regulatory requirements to produce cleaner fuels.
  Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan stated in a May 2005 speech 
that, ``the status of world refining capacity has become worrisome. Of 
special concern is the need to add adequate coking and desulphurization 
capacity to convert the average gravity and sulphur content of much of 
the world's crude oil to the lighter and sweeter needs of product 
markets, which are increasingly dominated by transportation fuels that 
must meet ever-more stringent environmental requirements.''
  Make no mistake, significant investments have been made to achieving 
environmental objectives--however, investments into increasing capacity 
have been inadequate to meet demand, and no new domestic refinery has 
been built since 1976.
  A critical hurdle to constructing anything these days, especially 
refineries, is overcoming the ``Not-In-My-Backyard'' or NIMBY 
interests. The President recognized the need to build new refineries 
while overcoming local opposition when he recommended that policymakers 
consider constructing on BRAC sites.
  Building upon what we learned in our hearing while balancing 
potential local opposition to refineries and answering the President 
and the public's call, I rise today to introduce the Gas Petroleum 
Refiner Improvement and Community Empowerment Act or Gas PRICE Act. 
This Gas PRICE Act seeks to address fuels challenges in the short, mid 
and long-term range in several key ways.
  First, the bill encourages communities who are about to lose jobs as 
a result of BRAC to consider building refineries on those properties. 
The legislation directs the Economic Development Administration to 
provide additional resources to communities considering new refineries 
on those sites. Refineries are not just a good source of high paying 
jobs, but they are an area of national interest so those communities 
acting in that interest should be benefited.
  Second, States have a significant if not dominant role in permitting 
existing or new refineries. Yet, States face particular technical and 
financial constraints when faced with these extremely complex 
facilities. Therefore, the Gas PRICE Act establishes a Governor opt-in 
program that requires the Administrator to coordinate and concurrently 
review all permits with the relevant State agencies to permit 
refineries. This program does not waive or modify any environmental 
law, but seeks to assist States and consumers by providing greater 
certainty in the permitting process.
  Third, the Gas PRICE Act answers the call for increasing efficiency. 
Today's recent reports show that natural gas prices this winter are 
projected to increase 75 percent. This bill requires the EPA's Natural 
Gas Star Program to provide grants to identify and use methane emission 
reduction technologies.
  Further, it requires the Administrator to conduct a series of methane 
emission reduction workshops with the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact 
Commission to officials in the oil and gas producing states.
  Fourth, the supply disruptions caused by hurricane Katrina required

[[Page S10437]]

EPA to issue fuel waivers to allow the use of conventional fuel in 
special or boutique fuel areas. The bill provides that States acting 
pursuant to an emergency will be held harmless under the law. 
Additionally, some members have called for the reduction of the total 
number of fuels used to increase the overall fungibility. In principle, 
I agree with my colleagues, however the special or boutique fuel blends 
address environmental and health needs of each region. Therefore, I 
have proposed a more cautious approach that will allow for the 
reduction of fuel blends pursuant to the environmental and consumer 
preferences in each State.
  Fifth, policymakers, businesses, and the public have struggled to 
balance increased demand for transportation fuels against preferences 
for ever more stringent environmental quality all while preserving low 
prices at the pump. Most ``solutions'' have focused on technologies 
that may not be realized for decades or other measures that would hurt 
U.S. manufacturers.
  Fischer-Tropsche fuels are the likely answer. F-T fuels use petroleum 
coke, a waste product from the refining process, or domestic coal to 
produce ultra-clean, virtually sulfur free diesel or jet fuel, and are 
price competitive at $38/barrel of oil.
  The Gas PRICE Act requires EPA to establish a demonstration project 
to use Fischer-Tropsche, diesel and jet, as an emission control 
strategy; and authorizes EPA to issue up to two loan guarantees to 
demonstrate commercial scale F--T fuels production facilities using 
domestic petroleum coke or coal.
  Of course, Congress should have taken many actions in anticipation of 
the current refining capacity crunch over last several years. Yet, as I 
indicated earlier, elected officials in large measure react to the will 
of their constituents. The good news is that we are not too late to 
make sure that the economy-wide stifling high prices are only 
temporary.
  The Gas PRICE Act that we are introducing today can go a long way in 
addressing the nation's short, mid, and long-term fuels challenges. 
Furthermore, it does so by empowering local communities and States, 
establishing greater regulatory certainty without changing any 
environmental law, improving efficiency, and establishing a future for 
the use of ultra clean transportation fuels derived from abundant 
domestic resources.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 1773. A bill to resolve certain Native American claims in New 
Mexico, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator 
Bingaman, to introduce a historic piece of legislation. I call this 
bill historic because its purpose is to implement the final settlement 
to be entered into under the Indian Claims Commission Act of 1946. I 
understand that passage of this legislation will complete the final 
chapter in the history of that act.
  The Indian Claims Commission Act of 1946 was enacted to allow the 
Indian Claims Commission to hear certain tribal claims filed between 
1946 and 1951. Nationally, the act has involved more than 600 claims by 
tribes. With the passage of this legislation, we will complete the 
process begun in almost sixty years ago.
  The specific claim being resolved by the Pueblo de San Ildefonso 
Claims Settlement Act of 2005 involves the San Ildefonso Pueblo's 
7,700-acre ancestral land claim against the Federal Government. This 
bill marks the successful culmination of a long-awaited settlement 
agreement between the San Ildefonso Pueblo and the United States and 
involved much hard work by all of the parties involved. The 
introduction of this legislation marks an important day for the San 
Ildefonso Pueblo and others in my home state of New Mexico. This is a 
necessary bill, and I hope that my colleagues will act quickly to 
resolve the final claim filed under the Indian Claims Commission Act of 
1946.
  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. 1773

       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 ``Pueblo de San Ildefonso 
     Claims Settlement Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Definitions.--In this Act:
       (1) Administrative access.--The term ``administrative 
     access'' means the unrestricted use of land and interests in 
     land for ingress and egress by an agency of the United States 
     (including a permittee, contractor, agent, or assignee of the 
     United States) in order to carry out an activity authorized 
     by law or regulation, or otherwise in furtherance of the 
     management of Federally-owned land and resources.
       (2) County.--The term ``County'' means the incorporated 
     county of Los Alamos, New Mexico.
       (3) Los alamos agreement.--The term ``Los Alamos 
     Agreement'' means the agreement among the County, the Pueblo, 
     the Department of Agriculture Forest Service, and the Bureau 
     of Indian Affairs dated January, 22, 2004.
       (4) Los alamos townsite land.--``Los Alamos Townsite Land'' 
     means the land identified as Attachment B (dated December 12, 
     2003) to the Los Alamos Agreement.
       (5) Northern tier land.--``Northern Tier Land'' means the 
     land comprising approximately 739.71 acres and identified as 
     ``Northern Tier Lands'' in Appendix B (dated August 3, 2004) 
     to the Settlement Agreement.
       (6) Pending litigation.--The term ``Pending Litigation'' 
     means the case styled Pueblo of San Ildefonso v. United 
     States, Docket Number 354, originally filed with the Indian 
     Claims Commission and pending in the United States Court of 
     Federal Claims on the date of enactment of this Act.
       (7) Pueblo.--The term ``Pueblo'' means the Pueblo de San 
     Ildefonso, a Federally recognized Indian tribe (also known as 
     the ``Pueblo of San Ildefonso'').
       (8) Settlement agreement.--The term ``Settlement 
     Agreement'' means the agreement entitled ``Settlement 
     Agreement between the United States and the Pueblo de San 
     Ildefonso to Resolve All of the Pueblo's Land Title and 
     Trespass Claims'' and dated June 7, 2005.
       (9) Settlement area land.--The term ``Settlement Area 
     Land'' means the National Forest System land located within 
     the Santa Fe National Forest, as described in Appendix B to 
     the Settlement Agreement, that is available for purchase by 
     the Pueblo under section 9(a) of the Settlement Agreement.
       (10) Settlement fund.--The term ``Settlement Fund'' means 
     the Pueblo de San Ildefonso Land Claims Settlement Fund 
     established by section 6.
       (11) Sisk act.--The term ``Sisk Act'' means Public Law 90-
     171 (commonly known as the ``Sisk Act'') (16 U.S.C. 484a).
       (12) Water system land.--The term ``Water System Land'' 
     means the Federally-owned land located within the Santa Fe 
     National Forest to be conveyed to the County under the Los 
     Alamos Agreement.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to finally dispose, as set forth in sections 4 and 5, 
     of all rights, claims, or demands that the Pueblo has 
     asserted or could have asserted against the United States 
     with respect to any and all claims in the Pending Litigation;
       (2) to extinguish claims based on aboriginal title, Indian 
     title, or recognized title, or any other title claims under 
     section 5;
       (3) to authorize the Pueblo to acquire the Settlement Area 
     Land, and to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to convey 
     the Water System Land, the Northern Tier Land, and the Los 
     Alamos Townsite Land for market value consideration, and for 
     such consideration to be paid to the Secretary of Agriculture 
     for the acquisition of replacement National Forest land 
     elsewhere in New Mexico;
       (4) to provide that the Settlement Area Land acquired by 
     the Pueblo shall be held by the Secretary of the Interior in 
     trust for the benefit of the Pueblo;
       (5) to facilitate government-to-government relations 
     between the United States and the Pueblo regarding 
     cooperation in the management of certain land administered by 
     the National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management 
     as described in sections 7 and 8 of the Settlement Agreement;
       (6) to ratify the Settlement Agreement; and,
       (7) to ratify the Los Alamos Agreement.

     SEC. 3. RATIFICATION OF AGREEMENTS.

       (a) Ratification.--The Settlement Agreement and Los Alamos 
     Agreement are ratified under Federal law, and the parties to 
     those agreements are authorized to carry out the provisions 
     of the agreements.
       (b) Corrections and Modifications.--The respective parties 
     to the Settlement Agreement and the Los Alamos Agreement are 
     authorized, by mutual agreement, to correct errors in any 
     legal description or maps, and to make minor modifications to 
     those agreements.

     SEC. 4. JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL OF LITIGATION.

       (a) Dismissal.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the United States and the Pueblo shall 
     execute and file with the United States Court of Federal 
     Claims in the Pending Litigation a motion for entry of final 
     judgment in accordance with section 5 of the Settlement 
     Agreement.
       (b) Compensation.--Upon entry of the final judgment under 
     subsection (a), $6,900,000

[[Page S10438]]

     shall be paid into the Settlement Fund as compensation to the 
     Pueblo in accordance with section 1304 of title 31, United 
     States Code.

     SEC. 5. RESOLUTION OF CLAIMS.

       (a) Extinguishments.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     in consideration of the benefits of the Settlement Agreement, 
     and in recognition of the agreement of the Pueblo to the 
     Settlement Agreement, all claims of the Pueblo against the 
     United States (including any claim against an agency, 
     officer, or instrumentality of the United States) are 
     relinquished and extinguished, including--
       (1) any claim to land based on aboriginal title, Indian 
     title, or recognized title;
       (2) any claim for damages or other judicial relief or for 
     administrative remedies that were brought, or that were 
     knowable and could have been brought, on or before the date 
     of the Settlement Agreement;
       (3) any claim relating to--
       (A) any federally-administered land, including National 
     Park System land, National Forest System land, Public land 
     administered by the Bureau of Land Management, the Settlement 
     Area Land, the Water System Land, the Northern Tier Land, and 
     the Los Alamos Townsite Land; and
       (B) any land owned by, or held for the benefit of, any 
     Indian tribe other than the Pueblo; and
       (4) any claim that was, or that could have been, asserted 
     in the Pending Litigation.
       (b) Exceptions.--Nothing in this Act or the Settlement 
     Agreement shall in any way extinguish or otherwise impair--
       (1) the title of record of the Pueblo to land held by or 
     for the benefit of the Pueblo, as identified in Appendix D to 
     the Settlement Agreement, on or before the date of enactment 
     of this Act; and,
       (2) the title of the Pueblo to the Pueblo de San Ildefonso 
     Grant, including, as identified in Appendix D to the 
     Settlement Agreement--
       (A) the title found by the United States District Court for 
     the District of New Mexico in the case styled United States 
     v. Apodoca (Number 2031, equity: December 5, 1930) not to 
     have been extinguished; and
       (B) title to any land that has been reacquired by the 
     Pueblo pursuant to the Act entitled ``An Act to quiet the 
     title to lands within Pueblo Indian land grants, and for 
     other purposes'', approved June 7, 1924 (43 Stat. 636, 
     chapter 331);
       (3) the water rights of the Pueblo appurtenant to the land 
     described in paragraphs (1) and (2); and
       (4) any rights of the Pueblo or a member of the Pueblo 
     under Federal law relating to religious or cultural access 
     to, and use of, Federal land.
       (c) Previous Extinguishments Unimpaired.--Nothing in this 
     Act affects any prior extinguishments of rights or claims of 
     the Pueblo which may have occurred by operation of law.
       (d) Boundaries and Title Unaffected.--
       (1) Boundaries.--Nothing in this Act affects the location 
     of the boundaries of the Pueblo de San Ildefonso Grant.
       (2) Rights, title, and interest.--Nothing in this Act 
     affects, ratifies, or confirms the right, title, or interest 
     of the Pueblo in the land held by, or for the benefit of, the 
     Pueblo, including the land described in Appendix D of the 
     Settlement Agreement.

     SEC. 6. SETTLEMENT FUND.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury a 
     fund to be known as the ``Pueblo de San Ildefonso Land Claims 
     Settlement Fund''.
       (b) Conditions.--Monies deposited in the Settlement Fund 
     shall be subject to the following conditions:
       (1) Maintenance and investment.--The Settlement Fund shall 
     be maintained and invested by the Secretary of the Interior 
     pursuant to the Act of June 24, 1938 (25 U.S.C. 162a).
       (2) Use of funds.--Subject to paragraph (3), monies 
     deposited into the Settlement Fund shall be expended by the 
     Pueblo--
       (A) to acquire the Federally administered Settlement Area 
     Land;
       (B) to pay for the acquisition of the Water System Land, as 
     provided in the Los Alamos Agreement; and
       (C) at the option of the Pueblo, to acquire other land.
       (3) Effect of withdrawal.--If the Pueblo withdraws monies 
     from the Settlement Fund, neither the Secretary of the 
     Interior nor the Secretary of the Treasury shall retain any 
     oversight over, or liability for, the accounting, 
     disbursement, or investment of the withdrawn funds.
       (4) Per capita distribution.--No portion of the funds in 
     the Settlement Fund may be paid to Pueblo members on a per 
     capita basis.
       (5) Acquisition of land.--The acquisition of land with 
     funds from the Settlement Fund shall be on a willing-seller, 
     willing-buyer basis, and no eminent domain authority may be 
     exercised for purposes of acquiring land for the benefit of 
     the Pueblo under this Act.
       (6) Effect of other laws.--The Act of October 19, 1973 
     (Public Law 93-134; 87 Stat. 466) and section 203 of the 
     American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 (25 
     U.S.C. 4023) shall not apply to the Settlement Fund.

     SEC. 7. LAND OWNERSHIP ADJUSTMENTS.

       (a) Authorization.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Agriculture may sell the 
     Settlement Area Land, Water System Land, and Los Alamos 
     Townsite Land, on such terms and conditions as are agreed 
     upon and described in the Settlement Agreement and the Los 
     Alamos Agreement, including reservations for administrative 
     access and other access as shown on Appendix B of the 
     Settlement Agreement.
       (2) Effect of claims and cause of action.--Consideration 
     for any land authorized for sale by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall not be offset or reduced by any claim or 
     cause of action by any party to whom the land is conveyed.
       (b) Consideration.--The consideration to be paid for the 
     Federal land authorized for sale in subsection (a) shall be--
       (1) for the Settlement Area Land and Water System Land, the 
     consideration agreed upon in the Settlement Agreement; and
       (2) for the Los Alamos Townsite Land, the current market 
     value based on an appraisal approved by the Forest Service as 
     being in conformity with the latest edition of the Uniform 
     Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions.
       (c) Disposition of Receipts.--
       (1) In general.--All monies received by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture from the sale of National Forest System land as 
     authorized by this Act, including receipts from the Northern 
     Tier Land, shall be deposited into the fund established in 
     the Treasury of the United States pursuant to the Sisk Act 
     and shall be available, without further appropriation, 
     authorization, or administrative apportionment for the 
     purchase of land by the Secretary of Agriculture for National 
     Forest System purposes in the State of New Mexico.
       (2) Use of funds.--Funds deposited in a Sisk Act fund 
     pursuant to this Act shall not be subject to transfer or 
     reprogramming for wildlands fire management or any other 
     emergency purposes, or used to reimburse any other account.
       (3) Acquisitions of land.--In expending funds to exercise 
     its rights under the Settlement Agreement and the Los Alamos 
     Agreement with respect to the acquisition of the Settlement 
     Area Land, the County's acquisitions of the Water System 
     Land, and the Northern Tier Land (if the Pueblo exercises an 
     option to purchase the Northern Tier Land as provided in 
     section 12(b)(2)(A), the Pueblo shall use only funds in the 
     Settlement Fund and shall not augment those funds from any 
     other source.
       (d) Valid Existing Rights and Reservations.--
       (1) In general.--The Settlement Area Land acquired by the 
     Pueblo shall be subject to all valid existing rights on the 
     date of enactment of this Act, including rights of 
     administrative access.
       (2) Water rights.--No water rights shall be conveyed by the 
     United States.
       (3) Special use authorization.--
       (A) In general.--Nothing in this Act shall affect the 
     validity of any special use authorization issued by the 
     Forest Service within the Settlement Area Land, except that 
     such authorizations shall not be renewed upon expiration.
       (B) Reasonable access.--For access to valid occupancies 
     within the Settlement Area Land, the Pueblo and the Secretary 
     of the Interior shall afford rights of reasonable access 
     commensurate with that provided by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture on or before the date of enactment of this Act.
       (4) Water system land and los alamos townsite land.--The 
     Water System Land and Los Alamos Townsite Land acquired by 
     the County shall be subject to--
       (A) all valid existing rights; and
       (B) the rights reserved by the United States under the Los 
     Alamos Agreement.
       (5) Private landowners.--
       (A) In general.--Upon acquisition by the Pueblo of the 
     Settlement Area Land, the Secretary of the Interior, acting 
     on behalf of the Pueblo and the United States, shall execute 
     easements in accordance with any right reserved by the United 
     States for the benefit of private landowners owning property 
     that requires the use of Forest Development Road 416 (as in 
     existence on the date of enactment of this Act) and other 
     roads that may be necessary to provide legal access into the 
     property of the landowners, as the property is used on the 
     date of this Act.
       (B) Maintenance of roads.--Neither the Pueblo nor the 
     United States shall be required to maintain roads for the 
     benefit of private landowners.
       (C) Easements.--Easements shall be granted, without 
     consideration, to private landowners only upon application of 
     such landowners to the Secretary.
       (e) Forest Development Roads.--
       (1) United states right to use.--Subject to any right-of-
     way to use, cross, and recross a road, the United States 
     shall reserve and have free and unrestricted rights to use, 
     operate, maintain, and reconstruct (at the same level of 
     development, as in existence on the date of the Settlement 
     Agreement), those sections of Forest Development Roads 57, 
     442, 416, 416v, 445 and 445ca referenced in Appendix B of the 
     Settlement Agreement for any and all public and 
     administrative access and other Federal governmental 
     purposes, including access by Federal employees, their 
     agents, contractors, and assigns (including those holding 
     Forest Service permits).
       (2) Certain roads.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the 
     United States--
       (A) may improve Forest Development Road 416v beyond the 
     existing condition of that road to a high clearance standard 
     road (level 2); and
       (B) shall have unrestricted administrative access and non-
     motorized public trail access

[[Page S10439]]

     to the portion of Forest Development Road 442 depicted in 
     Appendix B to the Settlement Agreement.
       (f) Private Mining Operations.--
       (1) COPAR pumice mine.--The United States and the Pueblo 
     shall allow the COPAR Pumice Mine to continue to operate as 
     provided in the Contract For The Sale Of Mineral Materials 
     dated May 4, 1994, and for COPAR to use portions of Forest 
     Development Roads 57, 442, 416, and other designated roads 
     within the area described in the contract, for the period of 
     the contract and thereafter for a period necessary to reclaim 
     the site.
       (2) Continuing jurisdiction.--
       (A) Administration.--Continuing jurisdiction of the United 
     States over the contract for the sale of mineral materials 
     shall be administered by the Secretary of the Interior.
       (B) Expiration of contract.--Upon expiration of the 
     contract described in subparagraph (A), jurisdiction over 
     reclamation shall be assumed by the Secretary of the 
     Interior.
       (3) Effect on existing rights.--Nothing in this Act limits 
     or enhances the rights of COPAR under the Contract For The 
     Sale Of Mineral Materials dated May 4, 1994.

     SEC. 8. CONVEYANCES.

       (a) Authorization.--
       (1) Consideration from pueblo.--Upon receipt of the 
     consideration from the Pueblo for the Settlement Area Land 
     and the Water System Land, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     execute and deliver--
       (A) to the Pueblo, a quitclaim deed to the Settlement Area 
     Land; and
       (B) to the County, a quitclaim deed to the Water System 
     Land, reserving--
       (i) a contingent remainder in the United States in trust 
     for the benefit of the Pueblo in accordance with the Los 
     Alamos Agreement; and
       (ii) a right of access for the United States for the Pueblo 
     for ceremonial and other cultural purposes.
       (2) Consideration from county.--Upon receipt of the 
     consideration from the County for all or a portion of the Los 
     Alamos Townsite Land, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     execute and deliver to the County a quitclaim deed to all or 
     portions of such land, as appropriate.
       (3) Execution.--An easement or deed of conveyance by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture under this Act shall be executed by 
     the Director of Lands and Minerals, Forest Service, 
     Southwestern Region, Department of Agriculture.
       (b) Authorization for Pueblo to Convey in Trust.--Upon 
     receipt by the Pueblo of the quitclaim deed to the Settlement 
     Land under subsection (a)(1), the Pueblo may quitclaim the 
     Settlement Land to the United States, in trust for the 
     Pueblo.
       (c) Adequacy of Conveyance Instruments.--Notwithstanding 
     the status of the Federal land as public domain or acquired 
     land, no instrument of conveyance other than a quitclaim deed 
     shall be required to convey the Settlement Area Land, the 
     Water System Land, the Northern Tier Land, or the Los Alamos 
     Townsite Land under this Act.
       (d) Surveys.--The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to 
     perform and approve any required cadastral survey.
       (e) Contributions.--Notwithstanding section 3302 of title 
     31, United States Code, or any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture may accept and use contributions of 
     cash or services from the Pueblo, other governmental 
     entities, or other persons--
       (1) to perform and complete required cadastral surveys for 
     the Settlement Area Land, the Water System Land, the Northern 
     Tier Land, or the Los Alamos Townsite Land, as described in 
     the Settlement Agreement or the Los Alamos Agreement; and
       (2) to carry out any other project or activity under--
       (A) this Act;
       (B) the Settlement Agreement; or
       (C) the Los Alamos Agreement.

     SEC. 9. TRUST STATUS AND NATIONAL FOREST BOUNDARIES.

       (a) Operation of Law.--Without any additional 
     administrative action by the Secretary of Agriculture or the 
     Secretary of the Interior--
       (1) on recording the quitclaim deed or deeds from the 
     Pueblo to the United States in trust for the Pueblo under 
     section 8(b) in the Land Titles and Records Office, Southwest 
     Region, Bureau of Indian Affairs--
       (A) the Settlement Area Land shall be held in trust by the 
     United States for the benefit of the Pueblo; and
       (B) the boundaries of the Santa Fe National Forest shall be 
     deemed to be modified to exclude from the National Forest 
     System the Settlement Area Land; and
       (2) on recording the quitclaim deed or deeds from the 
     Secretary of Agriculture to the County of the Water System 
     Land in the county land records, the boundaries of the Santa 
     Fe National Forest shall be deemed to be modified to exclude 
     from the National Forest System the Water System Land.
       (b) Future Interests.--If fee title to the Water System 
     Land vests in the Pueblo by conveyance or operation of law, 
     the Water System Land shall be deemed to be held in trust by 
     the United States for the benefit of the Pueblo, without 
     further administrative procedures or environmental or other 
     analyses.
       (c)  Nonintercourse Act.--Any land conveyed to the 
     Secretary of the Interior in trust for the Pueblo or any 
     other tribe in accordance with this Act shall be--
       (1) subject to the Act of June 30, 1834 (25 U.S.C. 177); 
     and
       (2) treated as reservation land.

     SEC. 10. INTERIM MANAGEMENT.

       Subject to valid existing rights, prior to the conveyance 
     under section 9, the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect 
     to the Settlement Area Land, the Water System Land, the 
     Northern Tier Land, and the Los Alamos Townsite Land--
       (1) shall not encumber or dispose of the land by sale, 
     exchange, or special use authorization, in such a manner as 
     to substantially reduce the market value of the land;
       (2) shall take any action that the Secretary determines to 
     be necessary or desirable--
       (A) to protect the land from fire, disease, or insect 
     infestation; or
       (B) to protect lives or property; and
       (3) may, in consultation with the Pueblo or the County, as 
     appropriate, authorize a special use of the Settlement Area 
     Land, not to exceed 1 year in duration.

     SEC. 11. WITHDRAWAL.

       Subject to valid existing rights, the land referenced in 
     the notices of withdrawal of land in New Mexico (67 Fed. Reg. 
     7193; 68 Fed. Reg. 75628) is withdrawn from all location, 
     entry, and patent under the public land laws and mining and 
     mineral leasing laws of the United States, including 
     geothermal leasing laws.

     SEC. 12. CONVEYANCE OF THE NORTHERN TIER LAND.

       (a) Conveyance Authorization.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to valid existing rights, 
     including reservations in the United States and any right 
     under this section, the Secretary of Agriculture shall sell 
     the Northern Tier Land on such terms and conditions as the 
     Secretary may prescribe as being in the public interest and 
     in accordance with this section.
       (2) Effect of paragraph.--The authorization under paragraph 
     (1) is solely for the purpose of consolidating Federal and 
     non-Federal land to increase management efficiency and is not 
     in settlement or compromise of any claim of title by any 
     Pueblo, Indian tribe, or other entity.
       (b) Rights of Refusal.--
       (1) Pueblo of santa clara.--
       (A) In general.--In consideration for an easement under 
     subsection (e)(2), the Pueblo of Santa Clara shall have an 
     exclusive option to purchase the Northern Tier Land for the 
     period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and 
     ending 90 days thereafter.
       (B) Resolution.--Within the period prescribed in 
     subparagraph (A), the Pueblo of Santa Clara may exercise its 
     option to acquire the Northern Tier Land by delivering to the 
     Regional Director of Lands and Minerals, Forest Service, 
     Southwestern Region, Department of Agriculture, a resolution 
     of the Santa Clara Tribal Council expressing the unqualified 
     intent of the Pueblo of Santa Clara to purchase the land at 
     the offered price.
       (C) Failure to act.--If the Pueblo of Santa Clara does not 
     exercise its option to purchase the Northern Tier Land within 
     the 90-day period under subparagraph (A), or fails to close 
     on the purchase of such land within 1 year of the date on 
     which the option to purchase was exercised, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall offer the Northern Tier Land for sale to 
     the Pueblo.
       (2) Offer to pueblo.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 90 days after receiving a 
     written offer from the Secretary of Agriculture under 
     paragraph (1)(C), the Pueblo may exercise its option to 
     acquire the Northern Tier Land by delivering to the Regional 
     Director of Lands and Minerals, Forest Service, Southwestern 
     Region, a resolution of the Pueblo Tribal Council expressing 
     the unqualified intent of the Pueblo to purchase the land at 
     the offered price.
       (B) Failure of pueblo to act.--If the Pueblo fails to 
     exercise its option to purchase the Northern Tier Land within 
     90 days after receiving an offer from the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, or fails to close on the purchase of such land 
     within 1 year of the date on which the option to purchase was 
     exercised under subparagraph (A), the Secretary of 
     Agriculture may sell or exchange the land to any third party 
     in such manner and on such terms and conditions as the 
     Secretary determines to be in the public interest, including 
     by a competitive process.
       (3) Extension of time period.--The Secretary of Agriculture 
     may extend the time period for closing beyond the 1 year 
     prescribed in subsection (b), if the Secretary determines 
     that additional time is required to meet the administrative 
     processing requirements of the Federal Government, or for 
     other reasons beyond the control of either party.
       (c) Terms and Conditions of Sale.--
       (1) Purchase price.--Subject to valid existing rights and 
     reservations, the purchase price for the Northern Tier Land 
     sold to the Pueblo of Santa Clara or the Pueblo under 
     subsection (b) shall be the consideration agreed to by the 
     Pueblo of Santa Clara pursuant to that certain Pueblo of 
     Santa Clara Tribal Council Resolution No. 05-01 ``Approving 
     Proposed San Ildefonso Claims Settlement Act of 2005, and 
     Terms for Purchase of Northern Tier Lands'' that was signed 
     by Governor J. Bruce Tafoya in January 2005.
       (2) Reserved rights.--On the Northern Tier Land, the United 
     States shall reserve the right to operate, maintain, 
     reconstruct (at standards in existence on the date of the 
     Settlement Agreement), replace, and use the

[[Page S10440]]

     stream gauge, and to have unrestricted administrative access 
     over the associated roads to the gauge (as depicted in 
     Appendix B of the Settlement Agreement).
       (3) Conveyance by quitclaim deed.--The conveyance of the 
     Northern Tier Land shall be by quitclaim deed executed on 
     behalf of the United States by the Director of Lands and 
     Minerals, Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Department of 
     Agriculture.
       (d) Trust Status and Forest Boundaries.--
       (1) Acquisition of land by indian tribe.--If the Northern 
     Tier Land is acquired by an Indian tribe (including a Pueblo 
     tribe), the land may be reconveyed by quitclaim deed or deeds 
     back to the United States to be held in trust by the 
     Secretary of the Interior for the benefit of the tribe, and 
     the Secretary of the Interior shall accept the conveyance 
     without any additional administrative action by the Secretary 
     of Agriculture or the Secretary of the Interior.
       (2) Land held in trust.--On recording a quitclaim deed 
     described in paragraph (1) in the Land Titles and Records 
     Office, Southwest Region, Bureau of Indian Affairs, the 
     Northern Tier Land shall be deemed to be held in trust by the 
     United States for the benefit of the Indian tribe.
       (3) Boundaries of santa fe national forest.--Effective on 
     the date of a deed described in paragraph (1), the boundaries 
     of the Santa Fe National Forest shall be deemed modified to 
     exclude from the National Forest System the land conveyed by 
     the deed.
       (e) Inholder and Administrative Access.--
       (1) Failure of pueblo of santa clara to act.--
       (A) In general.--If the Pueblo of Santa Clara does not 
     exercise its option to acquire the Northern Tier Land, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of the Interior, as 
     appropriate, shall by deed reservations or grants on land 
     under their respective jurisdiction provide for inholder and 
     public access across the Northern Tier Land in order to 
     provide reasonable ingress and egress to private and Federal 
     land as shown in Appendix B of the Settlement Agreement.
       (B) Administration of reservations.--The Secretary of the 
     Interior shall administer any such reservations on land 
     acquired by any Indian tribe.
       (2) Effect of acceptance.--If the Pueblo of Santa Clara 
     exercises its option to acquire all of the Northern Tier 
     Land, the following shall apply:
       (A) Easements to united states.--
       (i) Definition of administrative access.--In this 
     subparagraph, the term ``administrative access'' means access 
     to Federal land by Federal employees acting in the course of 
     their official capacities in carrying out activities on 
     Federal land authorized by law or regulation, and by agents 
     and contractors of Federal agencies who have been engaged to 
     perform services necessary or desirable for fire management 
     and the health of forest resources, including the cutting and 
     removal of vegetation, and for the health and safety of 
     persons on the Federal land.
       (ii) Easements.--

       (I) In general.--The Pueblo of Santa Clara shall grant and 
     convey at closing perpetual easements over the existing roads 
     to the United States that are acceptable to the Secretary of 
     Agriculture for administrative access over the Santa Clara 
     Reservation Highway 601 (the Puye Road), from its 
     intersection with New Mexico State Highway 30, westerly to 
     its intersection with the Sawyer Canyon Road (also known as 
     Forest Development Road 445), thence southwesterly on the 
     Sawyer Canyon Road to the point at which it exits the Santa 
     Clara Reservation.
       (II) Maintenance of roadway.--An easement under this 
     subparagraph shall provide that the United States shall be 
     obligated to contribute to maintenance of the roadway 
     commensurate with actual use.

       (B) Easements to private landowners.--Not later than 180 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Pueblo of 
     Santa Clara, in consultation with private landowners, shall 
     grant and convey a perpetual easement to the private owners 
     of land within the Northern Tier Land for private access over 
     Santa Clara Reservation Highway 601 (Puye Road) across the 
     Santa Clara Indian Reservation from its intersection with New 
     Mexico State Highway 30, or other designated public road, on 
     Forest Development Roads 416, 445 and other roads that may be 
     necessary to provide access to each individually owned 
     private tract.
       (3) Approval.--The Secretary of the Interior shall approve 
     the conveyance of an easement under paragraph (2) upon 
     receipt of written approval of the terms of the easement by 
     the Secretary of Agriculture.
       (4) Adequate access provided by pueblo of santa clara.--If 
     adequate administrative and inholder access is provided over 
     the Santa Clara Indian Reservation under paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary of the Interior--
       (A) shall vacate the inholder access over that portion of 
     Forest Development Road 416 referenced in section 7(e)(5); 
     but
       (B) shall not vacate the reservations over the Northern 
     Tier Land for administrative access under subsection (c)(2).

     SEC. 13. INTER-PUEBLO COOPERATION.

       (a) Demarcation of Boundary.--The Pueblo of Santa Clara and 
     the Pueblo may, by agreement, demarcate a boundary between 
     their respective tribal land within Township 20 North, Range 
     7 East, in Rio Arriba County, New Mexico, and may exchange or 
     otherwise convey land between them in that township.
       (b) Action by Secretary of the Interior.--In accordance 
     with any agreement under subsection (a), the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall, without further administrative procedures or 
     environmental or other analyses--
       (1) recognize a boundary between the Pueblo of Santa Clara 
     and the Pueblo;
       (2) provide for a boundary survey;
       (3) approve land exchanges and conveyances as agreed upon 
     by the Pueblo of Santa Clara and the Pueblo; and
       (4) accept conveyances of exchanged lands into trust for 
     the benefit of the grantee tribe.

     SEC. 14. DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS PLAN.

       Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall act in accordance 
     with the Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act 
     (25 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) with respect to the award entered in 
     the compromise and settlement of claims under the case styled 
     Pueblo of San Ildefonso v. United States, No. 660-87L, United 
     States Court of Federal Claims.

     SEC. 15. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       Notwithstanding any provision of State law, the Settlement 
     Agreement and the Los Alamos Agreement (including any real 
     property conveyance under the agreements) shall be 
     interpreted and implemented as matters of Federal law.

     SEC. 16. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 17. TIMING OF ACTIONS.

       It is the intent of Congress that the land conveyances and 
     adjustments contemplated in this Act shall be completed not 
     later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 18. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such funds as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Domenici in 
introducing the Pueblo de San Ildefonso Claims Settlement Act. This 
claim, the last one pending before the Indian Claims Commission, has 
gone unresolved for over 50 years and it is certainly long past time to 
bring an end to this dispute. I'd particularly like to commend the 
Pueblo de San Ildefonso for their diligent work on this settlement. It 
is testament to the Pueblo's fortitude and open-minded approach to this 
issue that they have been able find consensus with the many parties to 
this settlement and produce this compromise legislation.
  As with any settlement of a lawsuit, it's unlikely that everyone will 
be completely happy with the terms of the deal but I am pleased to note 
that all of the local governments, tribal and municipal, have expressed 
their support. I hope that the introduction of this bill begins a 
productive process in the Indian Affairs Committee and, once the final 
product is signed into law, with the public that will definitively 
settle the issues of land ownership in this area and allow all of the 
local communities to move forward cooperatively.

                          ____________________