[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 151 (Tuesday, November 15, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12840-S12851]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr.
Coleman):
S. 2008. A bill to improve cargo security, and for other purposes;
read the first time.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I'm pleased to introduce the
bipartisan GreenLane Maritime Cargo Security Act with the chair of the
Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, Senator Susan
Collins.
We've worked together to create an innovative bill that will protect
the American people and protect our economy from terrorist threats.
Our bill will help close one of the most dangerous vulnerabilities
facing our nation--a terrorist organization using cargo containers to
bring weapons and terrorists into the United States.
For decades, industry leaders in my home state of Washington and
around the world have worked hard to create an open, efficient trading
system. That system relies on cargo containers to move the vast
majority of the world's commerce from factory to market.
The cargo container has reduced the cost of trade--helping American
businesses and creating American jobs. We can be proud of the
efficiency and speed of our container trading system.
But that system was designed for a different time--before terrorist
attacks on American soil and before fanatics took jetliners and turned
them into missiles.
Our bill addresses those concerns. Our bill increases scrutiny of
shipments. It provides benefits to shippers but only after we have
verified that they have improved security. And it ensures we keep
testing the system to make sure it stays secure.
Let me quickly summarize the benefits of the GreenLane Act. It gives
U.S. officials in foreign ports the authority to inspect suspicious
containers before they are loaded for departure into the United States.
The GreenLane Act makes the haystack of containers smaller so that the
search is smaller. It allows the Government to focus on suspicious
cargo. It ensures that we are inspecting and stopping cargo that poses
a threat. And it cuts down smuggling of weapons, people, drugs or other
illegal cargo.
A smaller haystack and strict overseas security measures will allow
the United States and foreign officials to better stop criminal actions
and threats to our national security. The GreenLane Act protects
America's economy in the event of a terror attack, and it provides a
secure, organized way to quickly resume cargo operations after any
emergency shutdown. Because any shutdown of ports has the potential to
cost the U.S. economy billions of dollars a day, the GreenLane Act will
minimize the economic impact of a terrorist attack. And the GreenLane
Act creates market incentives for everyone in the supply chain to
improve security and take responsibility for the cargo they handle.
Today we have a choice in how we deal with the cargo security
challenges that face us. But if we wait for a disaster, we will not
have a choice. If we all agree on a system now, we will have a role in
shaping what it looks like and making sure it is sensitive to the need
for free-flowing commerce. I am here to say, along with Senator
Collins, that we need to make these changes on our terms now before
there is an incident. If we wait until after there is an incident, we
risk drastic actions that will hurt everyone. With the GreenLane Act we
introduce today, we have the opportunity to create effective, efficient
systems and put them in place now.
I invite anyone who cares about our security and our economy to join
Senator Collins and me in this effort. If anybody would like more
information, visit my Web page at Murray.Senate.Gov/GreenLane.
I thank Senator Collins for her tremendous leadership and partnership
in developing this legislation. She brings tremendous experience and
expertise to one of America's biggest threats. It has been a pleasure
to work with her in developing this critically important bill. I look
forward to working with her, and anyone else here, to help turn the
ideas of this bill into laws that will protect the American people.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague,
Senator Murray, in introducing today the GreenLane Maritime Cargo
Security
[[Page S12841]]
Act. It has been a great pleasure to work with my colleague on this
important issue. Senator Murray has been an early leader in the call
for greater port security. I am pleased we were able to join our
efforts in a bipartisan bill to provide long overdue improvements in
maritime security.
Our comprehensive legislation would help build a coordinated approach
to maritime and port security across all levels of government and with
our overseas trading partners. It would improve our Nation's security
as it expedites trade with those governments and businesses that join
us in this goal. It would encourage innovation, and it would provide
financial assistance to our ports as they strive to strengthen their
terrorism prevention and response efforts.
This legislation would provide the structure and resources needed to
better protect the American people from attack through these vital yet
extremely vulnerable points of entry and centers of economic activity.
Coming from a State with three international cargo ports, including
the largest port by tonnage in New England, I am keenly aware of the
importance of our seaports to our national economy and to the
communities in which they are located. In addition to our ports'
obvious economic significance, the link between maritime security and
our national security has been underscored time and again by terrorism
experts, including the 9/11 Commission. It is easy to see why, if you
look at the statistics.
In 2003, more than 6,000 ships made nearly 57,000 calls on American
ports. They carried the bulk of approximately 800 million tons of goods
that came into our country, including more than 9 million containers.
We know that al-Qaida has the stated goal of causing maximum harm to
the American people and maximum disruption to our economy. Therefore,
when you look at what could achieve those goals, you are instantly
drawn to our cargo ports.
We already have a glimpse of the staggering damage a terrorist attack
on a cargo port could produce. In the fall of 2002, the west coast dock
strike cost our economy an estimated $1 billion a day for each of the
10 days that the work stoppage lasted. It not only brought those
western coast ports to a halt but also harmed businesses throughout the
country. That astonishing amount of harm, $10 billion worth, was the
result of an event that was both peaceful and anticipated. Think of
what the impact of a terrorist attack would be.
More recently, Hurricane Katrina brought the port of New Orleans and
several other gulf coast ports to a standstill. Fortunately, much of
this cargo was able to be diverted to other ports undamaged by the
storm. In the aftermath of a terrorist attack, however, it is likely
that an attack on one port would result in the closure, at least
temporarily, of all ports. All of us remember in the wake of 9/11 that
commercial aircraft were grounded across this country for a number of
days. It is logical to assume that all of the ports would be closed in
this country if there were a terrorist attack on one port.
In addition to the threat of a direct attack on one of our ports, any
one of the more than 9 million containers that enter the United States
each year has the potential to be the Trojan horse of the 21st century.
When we look at these huge cargo ships unloading thousands of
containers every day, we think: Oh, that contains consumer goods, maybe
television sets or toys or clothing or sneakers. Fortunately, in the
vast majority of cases, that is exactly what is in those containers.
But a container could include terrorists themselves, biological or
chemical agents, or even a small nuclear weapon.
For years, criminals have used cargo containers to smuggle narcotics,
firearms, and people into the United States. These containers may come
from anyone of 1,000 ports overseas, ports that have varying degrees
and levels of security. They could also be intercepted or tampered with
along the way.
Earlier year this year, I toured the ports of Los Angeles and Long
Beach. The sheer size of these facilities and the activities that are
going on every day are startling. So, too, are the risks and the
vulnerabilities that they offer for terrorists to exploit. By
coincidence, my visit came days before 32 Chinese nationals were
smuggled into the port of Los Angeles in two cargo containers.
Fortunately, that Trojan horse held people who were simply seeking a
better way of life, albeit illegally, and they were not terrorists
seeking to destroy our way of life. They were caught. But what is
particularly disturbing to me, and speaks to the weaknesses and
vulnerabilities of the current system, is they weren't caught through
any security measure. It wasn't the container security initiative or
the C-TPAT Program or any other new initiative that resulted in these
32 Chinese nationals being caught. Instead it was an alert crane
operator who happened to see them crawling out of the containers.
We cannot continue to rely on luck or even alert crane operators to
provide for the security of our seaports, our Nation, and our people.
In August, the President issued the National Security Strategy for
Maritime Security. It warns of the probability of a hostile state using
a weapon of mass destruction sometime in the next decade, and it
identifies the maritime sector as most likely to be used to bring a
weapon of mass destruction into the United States. In addition, the use
of ``just in time'' inventories, which are now used by most industries,
means that a disruption of our ports would have catastrophic
repercussions for our entire economy.
A fundamental goal of port security is to head off trouble before it
reaches our shores. Current supply-chain security programs within the
Federal Government, however, were separately conceived and managed by
different agencies, rather than woven together into a layered,
consistent approach. The result of that, the Government Accountability
Office tells us, is that only 17.5 percent of high-risk cargo
identified by our own Customs agents was inspected overseas. I am
talking about cargo that has been identified as high risk, and yet we
are inspecting less than 20 percent of high-risk cargo. We found that
the current programs lack standards, lack staffing, and lack the
validation of security measures that are necessary for their success.
We cannot remove the risk of a terrorist attack, but the better
security measures outlined by the Murray-Collins bill can build a
stronger shield against terrorism without hampering trade.
This legislation provides the tools to construct a more effective
security system. It was developed in close consultation with key
stakeholders including port authorities, major retailers and importers,
carriers, supply chain managers, security and transportation experts,
and Federal and State agencies.
First, it addresses the problem of uncoordinated supply-chain
security efforts by directing the Secretary of Homeland Security to
develop a strategic plan to strengthen international security for all
modes of transportation by which containers arrive in, depart from or
move through seaports of the United States. This plan will clarify the
roles, responsibilities, and authorities of government agencies at all
levels and of private sector stakeholders. It will establish clear,
measurable goals for furthering the security of commercial operations
from point of origin to point of destination. It will outline
mandatory, baseline security measures and standards and provide
incentives for additional voluntary measures.
The new Office of Cargo Security Policy, established in our
legislation, would ensure implementation of the strategic plan. This
important office will report to the Department's Assistant Secretary
for Policy in order to better coordinate maritime security efforts
within the Department of Homeland Security and among our international
and private-sector partners.
This legislation also gives the Secretary 6 months to establish
minimum standards and procedures for securing containers in transit to
the U.S., based on the Department's experience with current cargo
security programs. All containers bound for U.S. ports of entry must
meet those standards no later than 2 years after they are established.
Currently, DHS has been too slow to implement certain vital security
measures. For example, the Department has been working on a regulation
setting a minimum standard for mechanical seals on containers for
[[Page S12842]]
more than 2 years. Such delays are unacceptable. This legislation would
set clear timelines to ensure steady progress.
The Department has also pledged to deploy radiation detection
equipment at all ports of entry in the U.S. to examine 100 percent of
cargo. The zero tolerance policy for radiation has been discussed since
2002, though less than a quarter of the detection equipment deemed
necessary for domestic coverage had been deployed as of last month.
Even more frustrating is that the Department has changed the target for
system deployment multiple times. The Department's new Domestic Nuclear
Detection Office is beginning to take hold of this critical issue, yet
the need for a comprehensive plan for the deployment of radiation
detection equipment is evident. Our legislation requires this plan be
developed and that 100 percent incoming containers to the U.S. be
examined for radiation no later than 1 year after enactment.
I want to thank Senator Coleman for his efforts in this area. These
provisions address concerns that have been identified through our joint
investigative work on programs protecting our nation against weapons of
mass destruction.
For the first time, this legislation would authorize the Container
Security Initiative. Ongoing, predictable funding--$175 million a year
for the five years beginning in 2007--is essential for this crucial
program to succeed. In addition to providing funding, the bill lays out
requirements for CSI ports and a process for designating new ports
under CSI. The Secretary must undertake a full assessment of the
potential risk of smuggling or cargo tampering related to terrorism,
before designating a port under CSI. This authorization also will
enable our CSI partners to strengthen anti-terrorism measures and to
improve training of personnel.
We would authorize C-TPAT at $75 million per year for that same 5-
year period, and we clearly outline the certification and validation
requirements and the benefits associated with meeting those
requirements. Our legislation directs the Secretary to correct the
deficiencies of the program, and, within one year, to issue guidelines
that will be used to certify a participant's security measures and
supply chain practices.
In addition, we would create a new, third tier of C-TPAT, called the
GreenLane, which offers additional benefits to C-TPAT participants that
meet the highest level of security standards. Cargo in transit to the
U.S. through the GreenLane would be more secure through the use of
container security devices and stronger supply chain security practices
in all areas, such as physical, procedural and personnel security. The
legislation directs the Secretary to develop benefits that may include
further reduced inspections, priority processing for inspections, and,
most significantly, preference in entering U.S. ports in the aftermath
of a terrorist attack. Senator Murray, who developed this concept, will
describe GreenLane in greater detail.
The bill also places a greater emphasis on communications among
government and industry players in responding to an incident and
settles the critical question of ``who's in charge.''
Technology plays an important role in maritime and cargo security.
The Department of Homeland Security has scattered efforts to deploy
existing technologies, to enhance those tools and to develop new ones.
It is critical that these efforts be undertaken in a more coordinated
fashion. In addition, the Government must work closely with and
encourage the ingenuity of the private sector in developing the
technologies that will improve both security and trade.
Let me close by saying that this legislation recognizes that
America's ports, large and small, are our partners in keeping our
Nation safe and our economy moving. Our Port Security Grant Program
will help our ports make the investments needed to meet the threat of
terrorism. The global maritime industry is crucial to our Nation's
economy, and our ports are undoubtedly on the front lines of the war
against terrorism. This legislation would set clear goals for improving
the security of this vital sector, and it would provide the resources
to meet and achieve those goals.
I again thank my colleague, Senator Murray, for her hard work and
initiative on this legislation. We are pleased to be joined as original
cosponsors by Senators Norm Coleman and Joe Lieberman. That is
indicative of the kind of bipartisan support this legislation enjoys,
and it is my hope that many more of our colleagues will join us in
bringing this legislation to enactment early next year. Our container
trading system was designed for a world before September 11.
Now, here we are, 4 years later, and we still have not made our
maritime cargo system as secure as it needs to be. Six months after the
September 11 attacks, I held a hearing to exam the vulnerability of
cargo security. Many of the concerns that were raised at that hearing
are still dogging us today.
One of the challenges we face is how we can make trade more secure
without slowing it to a crawl. If we have absolute security, we will
curtail trade. If we have completely open trade, we will not have
enough security.
For the past few years, I have been meeting with leaders in
Government and industry to figure out how we can strike the right
balance. One thing I know for sure is, it is better for us to work
together now to design a security system on our own terms than to wait
for an attack and force a security system in a crisis atmosphere.
I have spent several years exploring this challenge and meeting with
stakeholders to get their ideas. Senator Collins, as chair of the
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, has held
hearings on this issue and has introduced legislation.
As a result of our work, Senator Collins and I have developed the
GreenLane Maritime Cargo Security Act. It provides, for the first time,
a comprehensive blueprint for how we can improve security while keeping
trade efficient. At its heart, this challenge is about keeping the good
things about trade--speed and efficiency--without being vulnerable to
the bad things about trade--the potential for terrorists to use our
engines of commerce.
There is an incident that occurred a few years ago that shows just
how serious a threat we are facing. Four years ago, in Italy,
dockworkers noticed something strange about one of the cargo
containers. They opened it up and found an Egyptian man inside. But
this was not your average stowaway. This man was a suspected al-Qaida
terrorist, and he had all of the tools of the trade with him. His cargo
container had been outfitted for a long voyage with a bed, a heater,
and water. He had a satellite phone and a laptop computer. He also had
security passes and mechanic certificates for four U.S. airports.
Now, that happened in 2001. It can still happen today. But don't take
my word for it. The Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection said:
[T]he container is the potential Trojan Horse of the 21st
century.
The 9/11 Commission said terrorists may turn from targeting aviation
to targeting seaports because ``opportunities to do harm are as great,
or greater, in maritime or surface transportation.''
As we all know, our Government has uncovered al-Qaida training
manuals, and some of these books suggest that terrorists try to recruit
workers at borders, airports, and seaports.
There are two main scenarios we need to think about.
First, a group like al-Qaida could use cargo containers to smuggle
weapons and personnel into the United States. They could split up a
weapon and ship it to the U.S. in separate containers. And those pieces
could be reassembled anywhere in the United States. So the first danger
is that terrorists could use these cargo containers to get dangerous
weapons into the United States.
Secondly, terrorists could use a cargo container as a weapon itself.
A terrorist could place a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon
inside a container and then detonate it once it reaches a U.S. port or
another destination inside the United States.
This week, the 9/11 Commission said we have not done enough to
prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. One
study said if a nuclear device was detonated at a major seaport, it
could kill up to a million people.
[[Page S12843]]
Now, many of our ports are located near major cities. Others are
located near key transportation hubs. For example, if a chemical weapon
were detonated in Seattle, the chemical plume could contaminate the
rail system, Interstate 5, and SeaTac Airport, not to mention the
entire downtown business and residential areas.
Terrorists could also detonate a dirty bomb or launch a bioterror
attack. Any of those scenarios would impose a devastating cost in human
lives, but that is not all.
We also know that al-Qaida wants to cripple our economy. Cargo
containers could offer them a powerful way to do just that, and the
damage goes beyond lives. An attack launched through our ports would
also have a devastating economic impact. That is because after an
attack the Federal Government is likely to shut down our ports to make
sure that additional hazards weren't being brought into the country--
similar to what we did with airplanes after 9/11.
When we stopped air travel then, it took us a couple of days to get
back up to speed. And as we all remember, it cost our economy a great
deal. But if you stopped cargo containers without a resumption system
in place, it could take as long as 4 months to get them inspected and
moving again. That would cripple our economy, and it could even spark a
global recession.
Today, our cargo containers are part of the assembly line of American
business. We have just-in-time delivery and rolling warehouses. If you
shut down the flow of cargo, you are shutting down the economy. If our
ports were locked down, we would feel the impact at every level of our
economy.
Factories would not be able to get the raw materials they need. Many
keep small inventories on hand. Once those inventories run out,
factories would be shut down and workers laid off. We would also see
the impact in stores. Merchants would not be able to get their products
from overseas. Store shelves would go bear, and workers, again, would
be laid off.
One study, in fact, concluded that if U.S. ports were shut down for
12 days, it could cost our economy $58 billion. In 2002, we saw what
closing down a few ports on the west coast would do. When west coast
dockworkers were locked out, it cost our economy about $1 billion a
day. Imagine if we shut down all our ports, not just those on the west
coast.
Dr. Stephen Flynn, who is a national security expert, has said that a
3-week shutdown could spawn a global recession. It is clear that we are
vulnerable and that an attack could do tremendous damage.
If our ports were shut down today, we do not have a system in place
for getting them started again. There is no protocol for what would be
searched, what would be allowed in, and even who would be in charge.
Now, I want to acknowledge that we have made some progress since 9/
11. We have provided some funding to make our ports more secure. I have
fought for port security grants to make sure we are controlling access
to our ports, and our local ports are on the cutting edge of security.
We have implemented the 24-hour rule so we know what is supposed to be
in a container before it reaches the United States. We are adding some
more detection equipment to American ports, but, remember, once a
nuclear device is sitting on a U.S. dock, it is too late. Customs
created a program that works with foreign ports to speed some cargo
into the United States. It is a good idea, but to date it has not been
implemented well.
In May, the Government Accountability Office issued a very troubling
report. It found that if companies applied for C-TPAT status, we gave
them less scrutiny simply for submitting paperwork. We never checked to
see if they actually did what they said they were going to do. We just
inspected them less. One expert called that approach ``trust, but don't
verify.''
Even when U.S. Customs inspectors do find something suspicious at a
foreign port, they cannot force a container to be inspected today. They
can ask the local government, but those requests are frequently
rejected.
So because we cannot enforce those agreements through our State
Department, our Customs officials do not have the power they need, and
potentially dangerous cargo can arrive at U.S. ports without being
inspected overseas.
I am deeply concerned about this issue because I know that maritime
cargo, especially container cargo, is a critical part of our economy.
My interest in trade goes back to my childhood. My dad ran a small dime
store. He relied on imports to stock the shelves in his store.
International trade put food on our table, and I have never forgotten
that. So I want to make sure we close the loopholes that threaten our
ability to trade, while we protect our lives and our economy.
I have worked on this challenge for several years. I have held
hearings. I wrote and funded Operation Safe Commerce. And I have been
meeting with various stakeholders.
I know this proposal has to work for everyone in the supply chain:
importers, freight forwarders, shippers, terminal operators, and
workers such as longshoremen, truckdrivers, and port employees--all the
people who are on the frontlines as our eyes and our ears. They need to
be part of the solution because they would be among the first to be
hurt if an incident occurred.
Senator Collins and I have worked together to get input from
stakeholders, and with that we have crafted a bill that I believe
strikes the right balance. Our proposal is built around five
commonsense ideas.
It has been over 4 years since the tragedy of September 11, and some
of our most vulnerable assets--our ports and our maritime cargo
system--still do not have a coordinated security regime. So the
GreenLane Act will take that first step and ensure minimum security
standards are in place for all container cargo entering our ports.
Secondly, because there are so many cargo containers coming into our
country, we need to make that haystack smaller. We need to do a better
job in front-loading our inspections overseas before the cargo ever
gets loaded on a ship that is headed for the United States. Then,
instead of focusing on a small percent of all containers, we can
separate the most secure containers from the ones that need more
security.
Third, we need to give businesses incentives to adopt better
security. Companies are going to do what is in their financial
interest, and we can use market incentives to make the entire industry
more secure.
Fourth, we need to minimize the impact of any incident. Right now, if
there were a terrorist attack through one of our ports, there would be
an awful lot of confusion. So we need to put one office in charge of
cargo security policy. We need to create protocols for resuming trade
after an incident occurs. And we need to establish joint operations
centers to help make local decisions that will get our trade moving
again.
We cannot afford to leave cargo on the docks for weeks. We need a
plan that tells us in advance what cargo will be unloaded first, and
how we will get this system back on its feet.
Finally, we need to monitor and secure cargo from the factory floor
overseas until it reaches our own shores. There are vulnerabilities at
every step of the supply chain. A secure system is going to start at
the factory overseas and continue until that cargo reaches its final
destination.
I want to detail how our bill will make the American people safer.
First of all, it raises the security standards for everyone across the
board and directs the Department of Homeland Security to take all of
the best practices and lessons learned and create new standards that
will establish a new baseline of security for everyone.
Secondly, it creates the GreenLane. If shippers agree to follow the
higher security standards of the GreenLane, they get a series of
benefits.
To be designated as GreenLane cargo, importers have to ensure that
all entities within their supply chain are validated C-TPAT
participants; access to the cargo and containers is restricted to those
employees who need access and we are assured of their identification; a
logistics system is in place that provides the ability to track
everything loaded into a GreenLane container back to the factory; and,
a container security device, such as an e-seal, is used to secure the
container.
Remember, GreenLane is optional. No one has to participate. I believe
companies will want to participate because they will get benefits in
return.
What are those benefits? Their bonding requirements could be reduced
or
[[Page S12844]]
eliminated. Instead of paying customs duties on every shipment, they
could be billed monthly or quarterly. Their cargo will be subject to
fewer searches and will be released faster upon entering the United
States. They will lose less cargo to theft, and they will have the
stability that comes from having one uniform standard to plan around.
Finally, the GreenLane Act sets up a plan so that trade can be
resumed quickly and safely if an attack occurs. Today, there are no
protocols. There is no guide on how to get the system going again. Our
bill will create one, and it will let the most secure cargo--the
GreenLane cargo--be released first.
Our bill creates joint operations centers to ensure a coordinated,
measured response and the resumption and flow of commerce in the event
of an incident or heightened national security threat level.
Our bill takes other steps. It expands port security grants. It makes
sure we continue to monitor our security system to make sure it is
working. It makes sure that a company's cargo data is not available to
competitors. It sets a uniform standard for security so shippers and
others have some certainty, rather than a hodgepodge of different
standards.
There have been a lot of commissions and studies on port security,
and we have worked to address their recommendations in our bill.
The 9/11 Commission said we need ``layered'' security, that we need
to centralize authority so we can have more accountability, and that
Federal agencies need to share information better. Our bill implements
all of those recommendations.
The Government Accountability Office looked at current Customs
programs and identified some troubling shortcomings.
______
By Mr. MARTINEZ (for himself and Mr. Nelson of Florida):
S. 2009. A bill to provide assistance to agricultural producers whose
operations were severely damaged by the hurricanes of 2005; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Agriculture Hurricane Recovery Act of 2005 be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2009
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the
``Agriculture Hurricane Recovery Act of 2005''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
TITLE I--CROP ASSISTANCE
Sec. 101. Crop disaster assistance.
Sec. 102. Nursery crops and tropical fruit producers.
Sec. 103. Citrus and vegetable assistance.
Sec. 104. Sugar producers.
TITLE II--LIVESTOCK ASSISTANCE
Sec. 201. Livestock assistance program.
TITLE III--FORESTRY
Sec. 301. Tree assistance program.
TITLE IV--CONSERVATION
Sec. 401. Emergency conservation program.
TITLE V--LOW-INCOME MIGRANT AND SEASONAL FARMWORKERS
Sec. 501. Emergency grants for low-income migrant and seasonal
farmworkers.
TITLE VI--FISHERIES
Sec. 601. Fisheries assistance.
TITLE VII--TIMBER TAX RELIEF
Sec. 701. Timber tax relief for businesses affected by certain natural
disasters.
TITLE VIII--MISCELLANEOUS
Sec. 801. Infrastructure losses.
Sec. 802. Commodity Credit Corporation.
Sec. 803. Emergency designation.
Sec. 804. Regulations.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
Except as otherwise provided in this Act, in this Act:
(1) Additional coverage.--The term ``additional coverage''
has the meaning given the term in section 502(b) of the
Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1502(b)).
(2) Catastrophic risk protection.--The term ``catastrophic
risk protection'' means the level of insurance coverage
provided under section 508(b) of the Federal Crop Insurance
Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(b)).
(3) Disaster county.--The term ``disaster county'' means a
county included in the geographic area covered by a natural
disaster declaration due to hurricanes in calendar year
2005--
(A) made by the Secretary under section 321(a) of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C.
1961(a)) due to hurricanes in calendar year 2005; or
(B) made by the President under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121
et seq.).
(4) Insurable commodity.--The term ``insurable commodity''
means an agricultural commodity for which producers are
eligible to obtain a policy or plan of insurance under the
Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
(5) Noninsurable commodity.--The term ``noninsurable
commodity'' means an eligible crop for which producers are
eligible to obtain assistance under section 196 of the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7
U.S.C. 7333).
(6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
TITLE I--CROP ASSISTANCE
SEC. 101. CROP DISASTER ASSISTANCE.
(a) Emergency Assistance.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall use such sums as are
necessary of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to
make emergency assistance under this section to producers on
a farm or aquaculture operation (other than producers of
sugarcane) that meet the eligibility criteria of paragraph
(2) in the same manner as provided under section 815 of the
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law
106-387; 114 Stat. 1549A-55), including using the same loss
thresholds for quantity and quality losses as were used in
administering that section.
(2) Eligibility criteria.--For producers described in
paragraph (1) to be eligible for emergency assistance under
this section--
(A) the farm or aquaculture operation must be located in a
disaster county; and
(B) the producers must have incurred qualifying crop or
quality losses with respect to the 2004, 2005, or 2006 crop
(as elected by a producer), but limited to only 1 such crop,
due to damaging weather or related condition, as determined
by the Secretary.
(3) Limitation.--Qualifying crop losses for the 2006 crop
are limited to only those losses caused by a hurricane or
tropical storm occurring during the 2005 hurricane season in
disaster counties.
(b) Ineligibility for Assistance.--Except as provided in
subsection (c), the producers on a farm shall not be eligible
for assistance under this section with respect to losses to
an insurable commodity or noninsurable commodity if the
producers on the farm--
(1) in the case of an insurable commodity, did not obtain a
policy or plan of insurance for the insurable commodity under
the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) for
the crop incurring the losses;
(2) in the case of a noninsurable commodity, did not file
the required paperwork, and pay the administrative fee by the
applicable State filing deadline, for the noninsurable
commodity under section 196 of the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7333) for the
crop incurring the losses;
(3) had an average adjusted gross income (as defined in
section 1001D of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C.
1308-3a)) of greater than $2,500,000; or
(4) were not in compliance with highly erodible land
conservation and wetland conservation provisions under
subtitles B and C of title XII of the Food Security Act of
1985 (16 U.S.C. 3811 et seq.).
(c) Contract Waiver.--The Secretary may waive subsection
(b) with respect to the producers on a farm if the producers
enter into a contract with the Secretary under which the
producers agree--
(1) in the case of all insurable commodities produced on
the farm for each of the next 2 crop years--
(A) to obtain additional coverage for those commodities
under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.);
and
(B) in the event of violation of the contract, to repay to
the Secretary any payment received under this section; and
(2) in the case of all noninsurable commodities produced on
the farm for each of the next 2 crop or calendar years, as
applicable--
(A) to file the required paperwork, and pay the
administrative fee by the applicable State filing deadline,
for those commodities under section 196 of the Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C.
7333); and
(B) in the event of violation of the contract, to repay to
the Secretary any payment received under this section.
(d) Payment Limitations.--
(1) Limit on amount of assistance.--Assistance provided
under this section to the producers on a farm for losses to a
crop, together with the amounts specified in paragraph (2)
applicable to the same crop, may not exceed 95 percent of
what the value of the crop would have been in the absence of
the losses, as estimated by the Secretary.
(2) Other payments.--In applying the limitation in
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall include the following:
(A) Any crop insurance payment made under the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) or payment under
section 196 of the Federal Agricultural Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7333) that the producers on the
farm receive for losses to the same crop.
(B) The value of the crop that was not lost (if any), as
estimated by the Secretary.
[[Page S12845]]
(e) Crop Insurance Deductibles.--For the purpose of
determining crop insurance payments under this section, the
Secretary shall consider Hurricane Wilma has having occurred
during the 2005 crop year.
SEC. 102. NURSERY CROPS AND TROPICAL FRUIT PRODUCERS.
(a) Emergency Financial Assistance.--Notwithstanding
section 508(b)(7) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1508(b)(7)), the Secretary shall use such sums as are
necessary of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to
make emergency financial assistance available to--
(1) commercial ornamental nursery and fernery producers in
a disaster county for eligible inventory losses due to
hurricanes in calendar year 2005; and
(2) tropical fruit producers in a disaster county who have
suffered a loss of 35 percent or more relative to their
expected production (as defined in section 1480.3 of title 7,
Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation)) due
to hurricanes in calendar year 2005.
(b) Administration.--
(1) Determination of commercial operations.--For a nursery
or fernery producer to be considered a commercial operation
for purposes of subsection (a)(1) or (d)(1), the producer
must be registered as nursery or fernery producer in the
State in which the producer conducts business.
(2) Determination of eligible inventory.--For purposes of
subsection (a)(1), eligible nursery and fernery inventory
includes foliage, floriculture, and woody ornamental crops,
including--
(A) stock used for propagation; and
(B) fruit or nut seedlings grown for sale as seed stock for
commercial orchard operations growing fruit or nuts.
(c) Calculation of Losses and Payments.--
(1) Nursery and fernery producers.--
(A) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a)(1)--
(i) inventory losses for a nursery or fernery producer
shall be determined on an individual-nursery or -fernery
basis; and
(ii) the Secretary shall not offset inventory losses at 1
nursery or fernery location by salvaged inventory at another
nursery or fernery operated by the same producer.
(B) Amount.--The amount of payment to a nursery or fernery
producer under subsection (a)(1) shall be equal to the
product obtained by multiplying (as determined by the
Secretary)--
(i) the difference between the pre-disaster and post-
disaster inventory value, as determined by the Secretary
using the wholesale price list of the producer, less the
maximum customer discount provided by the producer, and not
to exceed the prices in the Department of Agriculture
publication entitled ``Eligible Plant List and Price
Schedule'';
(ii) 25 percent; and
(iii) the producer's share of the loss.
(2) Tropical fruit producers.--The amount of a payment to a
tropical fruit producer under subsection (a)(2) shall be
equal to the product obtained by multiplying (as determined
by the Secretary)--
(A) the number of acres affected;
(B) the payment rate; and
(C) the producer's share of the crop.
(3) Payment limitation.--The Secretary shall not impose any
payment limitation on an assistance payment made to a
nursery, fernery, or tropical fruit producer under paragraph
(1) or (2) of subsection (a).
(d) Debris-Removal Assistance.--
(1) Availability of assistance.--The Secretary shall use
such sums as are necessary of funds of the Commodity Credit
Corporation to make emergency financial assistance available
to commercial ornamental nursery and fernery producers in a
disaster county to help cover costs incurred for debris
removal and associated cleanup due to hurricanes in calendar
year 2005.
(2) Amount of assistance.--
(A) In general.--Assistance under this subsection may not
exceed the actual costs incurred by the producer for debris
removal and cleanup or $250 per acre, whichever is less.
(B) No additional payment limitations.--Except as provided
in subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall not impose any
limitation on the maximum amount of payments that a producer
may receive under this subsection.
(e) Nondiscrimination.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), in
carrying out this section, the Secretary shall not
discriminate against or penalize producers that did not
purchase crop insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act
(7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) with respect to an insurable
commodity or did not file the required paperwork, and pay the
administrative fee by the applicable State filing deadline,
for assistance under section 196 of the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7333) with
respect to a noninsurable commodity.
(2) Penalty.--In the case of a producer described in
paragraph (1)--
(A) payment rates under this section shall be reduced by 5
percent; and
(B) the producer shall comply with subsection (f).
(f) Contract to Procure Crop Insurance or NAP.--In the case
of a producer described in subsection (e)(1) who receives any
assistance under this section, the producer shall be required
to enter into a contract with the Secretary under which the
producer agrees--
(1) in the case of all insurable commodities grown by the
producer during the next available coverage period--
(A) to obtain at least catastrophic risk protection for
those commodities under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.); and
(B) in the event of violation of the contract, to repay to
the Secretary any payment received under this section; and
(2) in the case of all noninsurable commodities grown by
the producer during the next available coverage period--
(A) to file the required paperwork, and pay the
administrative fee by the applicable State filing deadline,
for those commodities under section 196 of the Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C.
7333); and
(B) in the event of violation of the contract, to repay to
the Secretary any payment received under this section.
(g) Relation to Other Assistance.--
(1) Link to actual losses.--Assistance provided under
subsection (a) to a producer for losses to a crop, together
with the amounts specified in paragraph (2) applicable to the
same crop, may not exceed 100 percent of what the value of
the crop would have been in the absence of the losses, as
estimated by the Secretary.
(2) Other payments.--In applying the limitation in
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall include the following:
(A) Any crop insurance payment made under the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) or payment under
section 196 of the Federal Agricultural Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7333) that the producer receives
for losses to the same crop.
(B) Assistance received under any other emergency crop loss
authority.
(C) The value of the crop that was not lost (if any), as
estimated by the Secretary.
(h) Adjusted Gross Income Limitation.--The average adjusted
gross income limitation specified in section 1001D of the
Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308-3a), shall apply to
assistance provided under this section.
SEC. 103. CITRUS AND VEGETABLE ASSISTANCE.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or any
other law, the Secretary shall use such sums as are necessary
of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to make
emergency financial assistance authorized under this section
available to both citrus and vegetable producers to carry out
an assistance program similar to the program entitled the
``Florida Citrus Disaster Program'', described at 69 Fed.
Reg. 63134, October 29, 2004, Document No. 04-24290 (relating
to Florida citrus, fruit, vegetable, and nursery crop
disaster programs), except that qualifying crop losses shall
be limited to those losses caused by a hurricane or tropical
storm occurring during the 2005 hurricane season in a
disaster county.
SEC. 104. SUGAR PRODUCERS.
The Secretary shall use $395,000,000 of the funds of the
Commodity Credit Corporation to make payments to processors
in Florida and Louisiana that are eligible to obtain a loan
under section 156(a) of the Federal Agriculture Improvement
and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7272(a)) to compensate first
processors and producers for crop and other losses that are
related to hurricanes, tropical storms, excessive rains, and
floods occurring during calendar year 2005, to be calculated
and paid on the basis of losses on 40-acre harvesting units,
in disaster counties, on the same terms and conditions, to
the maximum extent practicable, as payments made under
section 102 of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for
Hurricane Disasters Assistance Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-324;
118 Stat. 1235).
TITLE II--LIVESTOCK ASSISTANCE
SEC. 201. LIVESTOCK ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
(a) Emergency Financial Assistance.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall use such sums as are
necessary of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to
make payments for livestock losses to producers for 2005 or
2006 losses (as elected by a producer), but not both, in a
county that has received an emergency disaster designation by
the President after January 1, 2004.
(2) Restriction.--In determining eligibility for assistance
under this section, the Secretary shall not use the end date
of the normal grazing period to determine the threshold of a
90-day loss of carrying capacity.
(b) Administration.--Except as provided in subsection (a),
the Secretary shall make assistance available under this
subsection in the same manner as provided under section 806
of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001
(Public Law 106-387; 114 Stat. 1549A-51).
(c) Mitigation.--In determining the eligibility for or
amount of payments for which a producer is eligible under
this section, the Secretary shall not penalize a producer
that takes actions (including recognizing disaster
conditions) that reduce the average number of livestock the
producer owned for grazing during the production year for
which assistance is being provided.
(d) Inclusion of Poultry.--In providing assistance under
this section, the Secretary shall include poultry within the
definition of ``livestock''.
TITLE III--FORESTRY
SEC. 301. TREE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
(a) Specific Inclusion of Nursery Trees, Christmas Trees,
Timber and Forest Products.--Section 10201 of the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C.
[[Page S12846]]
8201) is amended by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the
following:
``(1) Eligible orchardist.--The term `eligible orchardist'
means--
``(A) a person that produces annual crops from trees for
commercial purposes;
``(B) a nursery grower that produces field-grown trees,
container-grown trees, or both, whether or not the trees
produce an annual crop, intended for replanting after
commercial sale; or
``(C) a forest landowner who produces periodic crops of
timber, Christmas trees, or pecan trees for commercial
purposes.''.
(b) Application of Amendment.--The Secretary shall apply
the amendment made by subsection (a) beginning in disaster
counties.
(c) Cost-Sharing Waivers.--
(1) Tree assistance program.--The cost-sharing requirements
of section 10203(1) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8203(1)) shall not apply to the
operation of the tree assistance program in disaster counties
in response to the hurricanes of calendar year 2005.
(2) Cooperative forestry assistance act.--The cost-sharing
requirements of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of
1978 (16 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) shall not apply in disaster
counties during the 2-year period beginning on the date of
enactment of this Act.
(3) Reforestation.--In carrying out the tree assistance
program under subtitle C of title X of the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8201 et seq.), the
Secretary shall provide such funds as are necessary to
compensate forest owners that--
(A) produce periodic crops of timber or Christmas trees for
commercial purposes; and
(B) have suffered tree losses in disaster counties.
TITLE IV--CONSERVATION
SEC. 401. EMERGENCY CONSERVATION PROGRAM.
(a) Specific Inclusion of Nursery and Fernery Producers and
Interior Fences.--Section 401 of the Agricultural Credit Act
of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2201) is amended--
(1) by striking ``sec. 401. The Secretary'' and inserting
the following:
``SEC. 401. PAYMENTS TO AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS FOR WIND
EROSION CONTROL OR REHABILITATION MEASURES.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Inclusions.--In this title:
``(1) Agricultural producer.--The term `agricultural
producer' includes a producer of nursery or fernery crops.
``(2) Interior fences.--The term `fences' includes both
perimeter pasture and interior corral fences.''.
(b) Application of Amendment.--The Secretary shall apply
the amendment made by subsection (a)(2) beginning in disaster
counties.
(c) Compensation.--The Secretary shall use funds of the
Commodity Credit Corporation to compensate producers on a
farm operating in a disaster county for costs associated with
repairing structures, barns, storage facilities, poultry
houses, beehives, greenhouses, and shade houses due to
hurricane damage in calendar year 2005.
TITLE V--LOW-INCOME MIGRANT AND SEASONAL FARMWORKERS
SEC. 501. EMERGENCY GRANTS FOR LOW-INCOME MIGRANT AND
SEASONAL FARMWORKERS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall use $40,000,000 of
funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation, to remain
available until December 31, 2007, to provide emergency
grants to assist low-income migrant and seasonal farmworkers
under section 2281 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation,
and Trade Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 5177a)
(b) Use of Grants.--Grants provided under this section may
be used to provide such emergency services as the Secretary
determines to be necessary, including--
(1) the repair of existing farmworker housing and
construction of new farmworker housing units to replace
housing damaged as a result of hurricanes during 2005; and
(2) the reimbursement of public agencies and private
organizations for emergency services provided to low-income
migrant or seasonal farmworkers after October 31, 2005.
TITLE VI--FISHERIES
SEC. 601. FISHERIES ASSISTANCE.
(a) Funds for Oyster Restoration.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, out of any funds in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
transfer to the Secretary of Commerce $10,000,000 to provide
assistance for reseeding, rehabilitation, and restoration of
oyster reefs located in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, or
Mississippi.
(2) Availability of funds.--The funds transferred under
paragraph (1) shall remain available until September 30,
2007.
(3) Receipt and acceptance.--The Secretary of Commerce
shall be entitled to receive, shall accept, and shall use as
described in this section the funds transferred under
paragraph (1) without further appropriation.
(b) Funds for Fisheries Disaster Assistance.--
(1) In general.--In addition to amounts appropriated or
otherwise made available, not later than 30 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, out of any funds in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall transfer to the Secretary of Commerce
$60,000,000 to provide fisheries disaster assistance.
(2) Limitation on use of funds.--Of the funds transferred
under paragraph (1)--
(A) not more than 5 percent of such funds may be used for
administrative expenses; and
(B) none of such funds may be used for lobbying activities
or representational expenses.
(3) Receipt and acceptance.--The Secretary of Commerce
shall be entitled to receive, shall accept, and shall use as
described in this section the funds transferred under
paragraph (1) without further appropriation.
(c) Provision of Assistance.--
(1) Lump sum payments to states.--The Secretary of Commerce
shall use the funds transferred under this section to provide
direct lump sum payments to the States of Louisiana,
Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida to provide assistance to
persons located in a disaster county who have experienced
significant economic hardship due to the loss of fisheries,
oysters, lobsters, stone crabs, or clams, destroyed or
damaged processing facilities, or closures due to red tide or
other water quality issues.
(2) Use of funds.--Funds transferred to the Secretary of
Commerce under this section shall be used to provide
assistance--
(A) to individuals, with priority given to food, energy
needs, housing assistance, transportation fuel, and other
urgent needs;
(B) to small businesses, including fishermen, fish
processors, and related businesses serving the fishing
industry;
(C) to carry out activities related to domestic product
marketing and seafood promotion; and
(D) to carry out seafood testing programs operated by a
State.
TITLE VII--TIMBER TAX RELIEF
SEC. 701. TIMBER TAX RELIEF FOR BUSINESSES AFFECTED BY
CERTAIN NATURAL DISASTERS.
(a) Casualty Losses.--
(1) In general.--Section 1211 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to limitation of capital losses) shall not
apply to any qualified timber loss.
(2) Qualified timber loss.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term ``qualified timber loss'' means a loss
with respect to timber which is attributable to--
(A) Hurricane Dennis,
(B) Hurricane Katrina,
(C) Hurricane Rita, or
(D) Hurricane Wilma.
(b) Increased Expensing for Reforestation Expenditures.--
(1) In general.--In applying section 194(b) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to any specified qualified timber
property for the first taxable year beginning after the date
of the enactment of this section, subparagraph (B) of section
194(b)(1) shall be applied--
(A) by substituting ``$20,000'' for ``$10,000'', and
(B) by substituting ``$10,000'' for ``$5,000''.
(2) Specified qualified timber property.--The term
``specified qualified timber property'' means qualified
timber property (within the meaning of section 194(c)(1) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) which is located in an
area with respect to which a natural disaster has been
declared by the President under section 401 of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act as a
result of--
(A) Hurricane Dennis,
(B) Hurricane Katrina,
(C) Hurricane Rita, or
(D) Hurricane Wilma.
TITLE VIII--MISCELLANEOUS
SEC. 801. INFRASTRUCTURE LOSSES.
(a) Infrastructure Losses.--The Secretary shall compensate
producers on a farm in a disaster county for costs incurred
to repair or replace barns, greenhouses, shade houses,
poultry houses, beehives, and other structures, equipment,
and fencing that--
(1) was used to produce or store any agricultural
commodity; and
(2) was damaged or destroyed by the hurricanes of calendar
year 2005.
(b) Timing of Assistance.--The Secretary may provide
assistance authorized under this section in the form of--
(1) reimbursement for eligible repair or replacement costs
previously incurred by producers; or
(2) cash or in-kind assistance in advance of the producer
undertaking the needed repair or replacement work.
(c) Payment Limitations.--Assistance provided under this
section to a producer for a repair or replacement project,
together with amounts received for the same project from
insurance proceeds or other sources, may not exceed 95
percent of the costs incurred to repair or replace the
damaged or destroyed structures, equipment, or fencing, as
estimated by the Secretary.
(d) Loan Eligibility.--After approval of the county
committee established under section 8 of the Soil
Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h) for
the county or other area in which the farming operation is
located, the producers on a farm in a disaster county shall
be eligible to receive an emergency loan under subtitle C of
the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C.
1961 et seq.) regardless of whether the producers satisfy the
requirements of the first proviso of section 321(a) of that
Act (7 U.S.C. 1961(a)).
SEC. 802. COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION.
Except as otherwise provided in this Act--
[[Page S12847]]
(1) the Secretary shall use the funds, facilities, and
authorities of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out
this Act; and
(2) funds made available under this Act shall remain
available until expended.
SEC. 803. EMERGENCY DESIGNATION.
The amounts provided under this Act or under amendments
made by this Act to respond to the hurricanes of calendar
year 2005 are designated as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress).
SEC. 804. REGULATIONS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may promulgate such
regulations as are necessary to implement this Act and the
amendments made by this Act.
(b) Procedure.--The promulgation of the regulations and
administration of this Act and the amendments made by this
Act shall be made without regard to--
(1) the notice and comment provisions of section 553 of
title 5, United States Code;
(2) the Statement of Policy of the Secretary of Agriculture
effective July 24, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 13804), relating to
notices of proposed rulemaking and public participation in
rulemaking; and
(3) chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code (commonly
known as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act'').
(c) Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking.--In carrying
out this section, the Secretary shall use the authority
provided under section 808 of title 5, United States Code.
______
By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Smith, and Mr.
Kohl):
S. 2010. A bill to amend the Social Security Act to enhance the
Social Security of the Nation by ensuring adequate public-private
infrastructure and to resolve to prevent, detect, treat, intervene in,
and prosecute elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, with my good friend and colleague, Senator
Blanche Lincoln, I rise to introduce the Elder Justice Act of 2005. We
are joined in this effort by Senator Gordon Smith, the chairman of the
Aging Committee, and Senator Herb Kohl, the ranking minority member of
that committee.
As my colleagues may recall, Senator John Breaux and I introduced
similar legislation in both the 107th and 108th Congresses, with the
strong support of Senators Lincoln, Smith and Kohl. The bill was
reported by the Finance Committee last year, but unfortunately it was
not approved before we adjourned.
Although the number of older Americans is growing at a rapid pace,
thousands of cases of elder abuse go unaddressed every day. The problem
of elder abuse, neglect and exploitation has long been invisible and is
probably one of the most serious issues facing seniors and their
families.
Research in the field is scarce, but, by some estimates, up to five
million cases of elder abuse, neglect and exploitation occur each year.
Without more attention and more resources, far too many of these cases
of abuse, neglect and exploitation will go unaddressed and far too many
older Americans will suffer.
Few pressing social issues have been as systematically ignored as
elder abuse. In fact, 25 years of congressional hearings on the
devastating effects of elder abuse have found this problem to be a
``disgrace'' and a ``burgeoning national scandal.'' Yet, to date, no
federal legislation has been enacted to address elder abuse in a
comprehensive manner.
During that same time period, Congress passed comprehensive bills to
address child abuse and crimes against women, yet there is not one
full-time Federal employee working on elder abuse in the entire Federal
Government.
The cost of elder abuse is high. This is true in terms of needless
human suffering, inflated health care costs, limited Federal resources
and the loss of one of our greatest national assets--the wisdom and
experience of older citizens.
S. 2010 is designed to create a national focus on elder abuse to
increase detection, prevention, prosecution and victim assistance. It
ensures that states, communities, consumers and families will have
access to the information and resources they need to confront this
difficult issue.
By addressing law enforcement, social service and public health
concerns, our bill uses the proven approach Congress has adopted to
combat child abuse and violence against women.
I would like to take this opportunity to describe our legislation in
more detail.
The Elder Justice Act establishes dual Offices of Elder Justice at
the Departments of Justice, DOJ, and Health and Human Services, HHS, to
coordinate Federal, State and local efforts to combat elder abuse in
residential and institutional settings. In addition, an Elder Justice
Coordinating Council will be established to make recommendations to the
HHS Secretary and the Attorney General on coordinating activities of
Federal agencies related to elder abuse. This Council is specifically
mandated to advise us on legislation, model laws and other appropriate
action on addressing elder abuse.
The bill creates an Advisory Board on Elder Abuse, Neglect and
Exploitation to establish a short-term and long-term multi-disciplinary
strategic plan for expanding the field of elder justice. The board
would make recommendations to HHS, DOJ, and the Elder Justice
Coordinating Council and submit to HHS, DOJ, and Congress information
and recommendations on elder justice programs, activities and
legislation.
The Elder Justice Act also directs the HHS Secretary to establish an
Elder Resource Center to develop ways to collect, maintain and
disseminate information relevant to consumers, families and providers
in order to protect individuals from elder abuse and neglect. It is our
hope that this Center will improve the quality, quantity and
accessibility of information available on elder abuse. In addition, the
bill establishes a National Elder Justice Library within the Center to
serve as a centralized repository for materials on training, technical
assistance and promising practices related to elder justice.
S. 2010 also improves, streamlines and promotes uniform collection
and dissemination of national data related to elder abuse, neglect and
exploitation. Today, data on elder abuse are very limited. The Director
of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, is directed to
develop a method for collecting national data regarding elder abuse and
then create uniform national data reporting forms to help determine
what a reportable event on elder abuse is.
The legislation includes several grants to combat elder abuse
including grants to improve data collection activities on elder abuse
prevention and prosecution of elder abuse cases. These grants would
establish five Centers of Excellence nationwide to specialize in
research, clinical practice and training related to elder abuse.
In addition, the HHS Secretary will award safe haven grants to six
diverse communities to examine elder shelters to test various models
for establishing safe havens. Elder victims' needs, which are rarely
addressed, will be better met by supporting the creation of safe havens
for seniors who are not safe where they live. Development of safe haven
programs which focus on the special needs of at-risk elders and older
victims are needed and necessary.
The legislation directs the HHS Secretary to award training grants to
groups with responsibility for elder justice, eligible entities to
provide care for those with dementia and certain entities to make
recommendations on caring for underserved populations of seniors living
in rural areas, minority populations, and Indian tribes. Training to
combat elder abuse, neglect and exploitation will be supported both
within individual disciplines and in multi-disciplines such as public
health, social service and law enforcement settings.
In addition, our bill directs the Secretary to award fellowships to
individuals so they may obtain training in both forensic pathology and
geriatrics. An individual receiving such a fellowship shall provide
training in forensic geriatrics to interdisciplinary teams of health
care professionals. Grants also would be awarded to create programs to
increase the number of health care professionals with geriatric
training. Finally, the Elder Justice Act directs the HHS Secretary to
award grants to conduct a national multimedia campaign to raise
awareness on elder abuse.
Our legislation also requires a number of studies on elder abuse
including one on the responsibilities of federal,
[[Page S12848]]
state and local governments in response to reports of elder abuse. This
study would be to improve response time to elder abuse and reduce elder
victimization.
In addition, the CDC Director is directed to conduct a study on the
best method to address elder abuse from a public health perspective,
including reducing elder abuse, neglect and exploitation committed by
family members. Current statistics indicate that only 20 percent of
elder abuse occurs in long-term care facilities and institutions--80
percent of elder abuse is committed in the home.
The bill also establishes new programs to assist victims and provides
grants for education and training of law enforcement and prosecutors.
It requires reporting of crimes in long-term care settings, creates a
national criminal background check program for those employed by long-
term care providers--something strongly advocated by Senator Kohl--and
establishes a national nurse aide registry program based on
recommendations by HHS.
Senior citizens cannot wait any longer for this legislation to pass.
More and more of us will enjoy longer life in relative health, but
with this gift comes the responsibility to prevent the needless
suffering too often borne by our frailest seniors.
In closing, I must note that our legislation has been endorsed by the
Elder Justice Coalition, a national membership organization dedicated
to eliminating elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation in America. This
coalition, which has been a strong advocate and supporter of the Elder
Justice Act, has 397 members.
This Congress, one of my top priorities is to get this bill signed
into law, once and for all, so that elder justice will become a reality
for those Americans who need it most. Our seniors deserve no less.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished
colleague, Senator Hatch, to introduce the Elder Justice Act of 2005. I
am pleased that Senate Special Committee on Aging Chairman Smith and
Ranking Member Kohl are joining us as original cosponsors of this
important legislation.
I have been a cosponsor of the Elder Justice Act since Senator Breaux
and Senator Hatch introduced the original bill in 2002. I joined them
again as a cosponsor in 2003 and helped pass a version of the
legislation out of the Senate Finance Committee in late 2004.
Unfortunately and regrettably, the Elder Justice Act failed to become
law last year, despite the incredible leadership by Senator Breaux and
Senator Hatch. It has yet to become law despite the fact that our
Nation continues to grow older and despite the fact that the tragedy of
elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation continues.
Abuse of our senior citizens can be physical, sexual, psychological,
or financial. The perpetrator may be a stranger, an acquaintance, a
paid caregiver, a corporation, and sadly, even a spouse or another
family member. Elder abuse happens everywhere, at all levels of income
and in all geographic areas. No matter how rich you are, and no matter
where you live, no one is immune.
Congress must make our seniors a priority and pass the Elder Justice
Act as soon as possible.
This bill represents the culmination of 25 years of congressional
hearings on the distressing effects of elder abuse. It represents a
consensus agreement developed by the Elder Justice Coalition, a
national organization dedicated to eliminating elder abuse, neglect,
and exploitation in America. This bill reminds us of the fact that
Congress has already passed comprehensive bills to address child abuse
and violence against women but has continued to ignore the fact that we
have no Federal law enacted to date on elder abuse.
Every older person has the right to be free of abuse, neglect, and
exploitation. And the Elder Justice Act will enhance our knowledge
about abuse of our seniors in all its terrible forms. It will elevate
elder abuse to the national stage. Too many of our seniors suffer
needlessly. Each year, anywhere between 500,000 and 5 million seniors
in our country are abused, neglected, or exploited. And, sadly, most
abuse goes unreported.
This historical problem will only get worse as 77 million baby
boomers age.
The Elder Justice Act confronts elder abuse in the same ways we
combat child abuse and violence against women: through law enforcement,
public health programs, and social services at all levels of
government. It also establishes research projects to assist in the
development of future legislation.
The Elder Justice Act will take steps to make older Americans safer
in their homes, nursing home facilities, and neighborhoods. It enhances
detection of elder abuse and helps seniors recover from abuse after it
starts. It increases collaboration between federal agencies and between
Federal, State, local, and private entities, law enforcement, longterm
care facilities, consumer advocates, and families to prevent and treat
elder abuse.
Each of us will grow older, and if we're lucky, we will live for a
very long time. A baby girl born today has a 50 percent chance of
living until she is 100 years old. What will we gain if we fail to
ensure that baby girl ages with dignity, free of abuse, neglect, and
exploitation? As Hubert Humphrey said, ``The moral test of government
is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the
children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those
who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the
handicapped.''
It is time for Congress to pass the first comprehensive federal law
to address elder abuse, the Elder Justice Act of 2005, to ensure that
those in the twilight of life are protected from abuse that threatens
their safety, independence, and productivity.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Elder Justice Act.
My job as a Senator is to help protect and defend the freedoms of all
Americans. As the Chairman of the Senate Aging Committee it is an
expressed duty of mine to focus on one of our more vulnerable
populations, older Americans.
All too often we concentrate our efforts to stop crime on crimes that
are reported or easy to identify. However, crimes against the elderly
are often never reported or identified. Many older Americans find
themselves reliant on a caregiver or close one who is taking advantage
of them physically or monetarily and have no means to take action
against this individual. This scary and sad scenario happens more often
then we would like to admit.
According to the best available estimates, between 1 and 2 million
Americans age 65 or older have been injured, exploited, or otherwise
mistreated by someone on whom they depended for care or protection. Too
many older Americans suffer from the various forms of abuse and the
legislation we are introducing today will take very important steps to
stop the long ignored problem of elder abuse. The Elder Justice Act
prevents and treats elder abuse by:
Improving prevention and intervention through funding projects to
make older Americans safer in their homes, facilities, and
neighborhoods. The bill specifically enhances long-term care staffing.
Creating forensic centers and targeting funding to develop expertise
in the detection of signs of elder abuse.
Targeting funding to efforts to better find ways to mitigate the
consequences of elder mistreatment.
Enhancing collaboration by supporting coordination between federal
and local entities including consumer advocates, long-term care
facilities and most importantly families.
My home state of Oregon has been a leader in many of these efforts.
One program, the Elder Safe program IN Washington County, helps victims
aged 65 and older after a crime is reported to police and continues to
help them through the criminal justice system. Based at the Sheriff's
Office, Elder Safe collaborates with the District Attorney's Office and
the Department of Aging and Veterans' Services and all city police
department to coordinate services to help seniors read legal documents
or travel to the courthouse. Assistance from the Elder Safe program is
tailored to the unique circumstance of each victim and may include
personal support, court advocacy, or help filling out forms. It is
important that we support programs, like the Elder Safe program,
nationally. The Elder Justice Act will be a huge boost to our efforts.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
important bill.
[[Page S12849]]
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Elder
Justice Act. I applaud the leadership and commitment that Senator Hatch
and Senator Lincoln have shown to protecting our Nation's senior
citizens by reintroducing this legislation. As Ranking Member of the
Special Committee on Aging, I am pleased to join Senator Smith, our
Chairman, as an original cosponsor of this important bill.
I also want to commend the bipartisan Elder Justice Coalition for its
role in developing and moving this bill forward. In particular, I would
like to acknowledge the contributions of Wisconsin members of the
Coalition, including the Coalition of Wisconsin Aging Groups, the
Wisconsin Association of Area Agencies on Aging, and the Wisconsin
Board on Aging and Long Term Care, among many others. Passage of the
Elder Justice Act is long overdue, and we look forward to working with
the Coalition to ensure that it becomes law as soon as possible.
In the past forty years, our Nation has made great strides to address
the ugly truth of child abuse and domestic violence in our society. We
have made a difference by making comprehensive legislation designed to
combat these terrible issues a top priority. Today, I ask the Congress
to once again focus on the issue of abuse only this time, to focus on
the grim reality of elder abuse, neglect and exploitation.
For the past 25 years, Congress has held hearings on the devastating
effects of elder abuse; yet no comprehensive action has been taken.
Abuse of the elderly is certainly nothing new, but as our Nation has
aged and the Baby Boom generation stands on the cusp of retirement, the
prevalence of elder abuse will only get worse. The time to act is now.
The shame and scandal of abuse, neglect and exploitation of our
Nation's seniors can no longer be ignored or tolerated.
I am pleased that the Elder Justice Act includes one of my top
priorities--a provision mandating a national criminal background check
system for nursing home, home health and other long-term care
employees. While the vast majority of employees are hardworking,
dedicated and professional, it is simply too easy for people with
abusive and criminal backgrounds to find work in long term care.
Today, seven States, including my home State of Wisconsin, are
engaged in a pilot project to require FBI criminal background checks
before hiring a new employee. The Elder Justice Act will ensure that
once the pilot is over, we will move to a national criminal background
check system so seniors in all fifty states will be protected. I want
to thank Senators Hatch and Lincoln and their staff for working with me
to once again include this provision as a key part of the Elder Justice
Act. I very much appreciate their efforts and look forward to working
with them to see that it becomes law.
In addition to the background check provision, the Elder Justice Act
takes a number of steps to prevent and treat elder abuse. First, it
will improve prevention and intervention by funding State and local
projects that keep older Americans safe.
Second, it will improve collaboration by bringing together a variety
of different Federal, State, local, and private entities to address
elder abuse. The bill ensures that health officials, social services,
law enforcement, long-term care facilities, consumer advocates and
families are all working together to confront this problem.
Third, it will develop expertise to better detect elder abuse,
neglect and exploitation, by training health professionals in both
forensic pathology and geriatrics.
Fourth, it will develop victim assistance programs for at-risk
seniors and create ``safe havens'' for seniors who are not safe where
they live.
Finally, it will give extra resources to law enforcement officials to
investigate cases of elder abuse and make them a top priority.
Once again, I thank Senators Hatch and Lincoln for bringing the issue
of elder abuse to the forefront by re-introducing this important
legislation. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting it.
______
By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself and Mr. Leahy):
S. 2011. A bill to require the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency to establish performance standards for fine
particulates for certain pulp and paper mills, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Tire Derived
Fuel Safety Act of 2005 to ensure that Americans living near pulp and
paper mills that burn tires for energy are protected from the potential
harmful effects of air pollutants such as fine particulates.
As the price of oil and natural gas continues to rise, U.S.
manufacturing facilities are seeking alternative energy sources. Pulp
and paper mills, in particular, are replacing these high cost energy
sources with lower cost tire derived fuels or TDF due to its high-
energy value.
The burning of tires results in the emissions of particulates, carbon
monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds,
PCBs, arsenic, cadmium, nickel, zinc, mercury, chromium and vanadium.
These air pollutants can have serious health impacts on the people
living downwind of facilities when effective emissions control
technologies are not used.
Luckily, most U.S. pulp and paper mills that burn TDF have already
installed electrostatic precipitators or fabric filters to control for
fine particulate emissions. And, in fact, EPA's 1997 ``Air Emissions
From Scrap Tire Combustion'' report states that it is not likely that a
solid fuel combustor without add-on particulate controls--such as an
ESP or fabric filter--could satisfy air emissions regulatory
requirements in the United States.
Yet, that hasn't stopped International Paper from proposing to burn
72 tons a day of tires at its Ticonderoga, NY mill without the addition
of commonly accepted emissions control technologies. Doing so
jeopardizes the health of Vermonters and New Yorkers alike.
My bill requires EPA to issue performance standards for fine
particulates for pulp and paper mills that switch to tire-derived fuels
to ensure that all communities across United States are equally and
fairly protected.
My bill also requires EPA to study and report to Congress on the
health impacts of increased emissions, particularly fine particulates,
from the use of TDF. It also requires EPA to work with Health and Human
Services to document the rates of childhood diseases--particularly
respiratory diseases--of children that live or attend school within a
20-mile radius of a pulp and paper mill burning TDF.
I invite my colleagues to join me in my efforts to ensure that all
Americans are equally protected from the harmful effects of the burning
of tire-derived fuel without adequate air pollution controls. 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. 2011
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 ``Tire-Derived Fuel Safety Act
of 2005''.
SEC. 2. COMBUSTION OF TIRE-DERIVED FUEL.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) Eligible mill.--The term ``eligible mill'' means any
pulp or paper mill (SIC code 2611 or 2621) that burns or
proposes to burn tire-derived fuel.
(3) Emission.--The term ``emission'' means an emission into
the air of--
(A) a criteria pollutant, including a fine particulate; or
(B) a hazardous air pollutant.
(4) Tire-derived fuel.--The term ``tire-derived fuel''
means fuel derived from whole or shredded tires, including in
combination with another fuel.
(b) Requirements for Approval.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Administrator
shall not issue a permit under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7401 et seq.), and shall object to the issuance of a permit
under section 505(b) of that Act (42 U.S.C. 7661d(b)),
authorizing the burning of tire-derived fuel at an eligible
mill that is a major stationary source (as defined in section
111(a) of that Act (42 U.S.C. 7411(a))) unless--
(A) the Administrator has listed the source as part of a
source category for which a performance standard has been
established under subsection (c); and
[[Page S12850]]
(B) the source demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
Administrator that the source--
(i) will install any control equipment required or make the
necessary process changes before the date on which the source
begins operation; and
(ii) will operate at or below the required emissions
performance standards as demonstrated by data from a
continuous emissions monitoring device.
(2) Interim permits.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the
Administrator may approve an interim permit (including a
trial permit) to burn tire-derived fuel at a new eligible
mill, or an eligible mill in existence on the date of
enactment of this Act, that is a major stationary source (as
defined in section 111(a) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7411(a))) that demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
Administrator that the source--
(A) will install--
(i) an electrostatic precipitator;
(ii) a Kevlar baghouse; or
(iii) any other technology that achieves a reduction in
emissions that is equivalent to the reduction achieved using
an electrostatic precipitator or a Kevlar baghouse; and
(B) will operate at or below the required emissions
performance standards as demonstrated by data from a
continuous emissions monitoring device.
(c) Standards for Certain Pulp and Paper Mills.--
(1) Establishment.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall establish
performance standards for fine particulates for--
(i) new eligible mills; and
(ii) eligible mills in existence on the date on which the
standards are proposed.
(B) Requirements.--In establishing standards under
subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall--
(i) ensure that the standards would result in reductions in
emission levels that are at least equal to reductions
achieved through the use of an electrostatic precipitator or
Kevlar baghouse; and
(ii) require pulp and paper mills that are in operation as
of the date on which the standards are proposed, but that are
not in compliance with those standards, to come into
compliance with the standards by not later than 18 months
after the effective date of the standards.
(2) Study and report on general health effects.--Not later
than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Administrator shall conduct a study, and submit to Congress a
report, on the impact on human health of increased emissions,
especially fine particulates, from the use of tire-derived
fuel.
(3) Report on health effects on certain children.--As soon
as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Administrator, in coordination with the Secretary of Health
and Human Services, shall submit to Congress a report that
describes the rates of birth defects and childhood diseases
(particularly respiratory and immune system diseases) of
children that live or attend school within a 20-mile radius
of any pulp and paper mill that burns tire-derived fuel.
______
By Mr. STEVENS (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Ms. Snowe, Ms. Cantwell,
Mr. Vitter, and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 2012. A bill to authorize appropriations to the Secretary of
Commerce for the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act for fiscal years 2006 through 2012, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I come to the Senate, along with my
good friend and coauthor, Senator Dan Inouye of Hawaii, to introduce a
bill to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and
Management Act.
This legislation reauthorizes the law that manages and regulates
fisheries in the United States exclusive economic zone. It is
cosponsored by Senators Snowe, Cantwell, and Vitter.
The law was originally enacted in 1976. A that time it was titled the
Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Senator Warren Magnuson and I
developed the law after Warren sent me to monitor the law of the sea
negotiations, which took place all over the world. A concept considered
during these negotiations was the expansion of a coastal nation's
sovereignty over its seaward waters out to 200 miles.
Warren and I took a bipartisan approach to the legislation and
developed a bill that established our country's exclusive right to
harvest fishery resources from 3 to 200 miles and put in place one of
the most successful Federal-State management systems. This system
recognized the complexity of our differing fish stocks and the unique
regional approaches needed to manage these resources.
This is now the seventh authorization of the act we created over 30
years ago. It is the first reauthorization I have been a part of as
chairman of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, which
has jurisdiction over this legislation.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 2005
implements many of the recommendations made by the U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy--the first such commission authorized by Congress to
review our nation's ocean policies and laws in over 35 years. This was
coauthored by my great friend from South Carolina, Senator Ernest
Hollings. The Commission's recommendations were important to the
development of this act we present to the Senate today.
The intent of this legislation is to authorize these recommendations
and to build on some of the sound fishery management principles we
passed in the Sustainable Fisheries Act in 1996, which was the last
time we reauthorized the act.
Our bill will preserve and strengthen the regional fishery management
councils. The eight regional councils located around the United States
and Caribbean Islands are a model of Federal oversight benefiting from
local innovation and management approaches. This reauthorization
establishes a council training program designed to prepare members for
the numerous legal, scientific, economic, and conflict of interest
requirements which apply to the fishery management process. In
addition, this reauthorization addresses concerns over the transparency
of the regional council process--it provides additional financial
disclosure requirements for council members and clarifies the act's
conflict of interest and recusal requirements.
In order to prevent overfishing and preserve the sustainable harvest
of fishery resources in all eight regional council jurisdictions, this
bill mandates the use of annual catch limits which shall not be
exceeded. Under the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act, overfishing of
overfished stocks was to end. To meet this goal, we required the
implementation of rebuilding plans which would restore any overfished
species to sustainable levels. It has been almost 10 years since we
passed the Sustainable Fisheries Act and overfishing of overfished
stocks remains a significant problem. The legislation we are
introducing today requires every fishery management plan to contain an
annual catch limit which is set at or below optimum yield, based on the
best scientific information available.
This bill also requires that any harvests exceeding the annual catch
limit be deducted from the annual catch limit for the following year.
An important recommendation from the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
was to establish national standards for quota programs. Our legislation
establishes national guidelines for the harvesting of fish for limited
access privilege programs, which are also called LAPPs. These
guidelines would require that any LAPP must accomplish important
objectives, including: assisting in rebuilding an overfished fishery;
reducing capacity in a fishery that is overcapitalized; promoting the
safety of human life at sea; promoting conservation and management; and
providing a system for monitoring, management, and enforcement of the
program.
The regional councils, the administration, and to a lesser extent the
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, all recommended we address the
inconsistencies between the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the National
Environmental Protection Act. They recommended we resolve timeline or
``process'' issues which have required councils to spend much of their
time and funding developing litigation-proof environmental impact
statements and environmental assessments under NEPA.
This bill provides a uniform process under which councils can
consider the substantive requirements of NEPA while adhering to the
timelines found in Magnuson-Stevens when they are developing fishery
management plans, plan amendments, and regulations.
Several of the provisions in this bill strengthen the role of science
in council decisionmaking, which was another strong recommendation made
by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Our bill specifies that the
scientific and statistical committees, called SSCs, are to provide
their councils with on-going scientific advice needed for management
decisions. This may include
[[Page S12851]]
recommendations on acceptable biological catch or optimum yield, annual
catch limits, or other mortality limits. The SSCs are also expected to
advise the councils on a variety of other issues, including stock
status and health, bycatch, habitat status, and socioeconomic impacts.
We have enhanced the overall effectiveness of this act by improving
data collection and management. Our legislation authorizes a national
cooperative research and management program, which would be implemented
on a regional basis and conducted through partnerships between Federal
and State managers, commercial and recreational fishing industry
participants, and scientists. This will improve data related to
recreational fisheries by establishing a new national program for the
registration of marine recreational fishermen who fish in Federal
waters. Our legislation also directs the secretary, in cooperation with
the councils, to create a regionally based bycatch reduction
engineering program which will develop technological devices and
engineering techniques for minimizing bycatch, bycatch mortality, and
post-release mortality.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act has worked well. It has enabled effective
conservation and management of our fishery resources and allowed for
sustainable harvests. Both the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the
Pew Oceans Commission singled out the fisheries managed by the North
Pacific Council--which does not have an overfished or endangered
species of fish--as an example of proper fisheries management.
Let me say that again. They singled out the fisheries management by
the North Pacific Council, which does not have an overfished or
endangered species of fish, as an example of proper fisheries
management.
The council consistently sets an optimum yield far below the
acceptable biological catch, and the fisheries in its jurisdiction have
remained sustainable and abundant. That is the North Pacific Council,
Mr. President. Our goal is to build upon this success and ensure the
sustainability of this resource for generations to come.
Unfortunately, management internationally and especially on the high-
seas is lacking. Industrial foreign fleets continue to expand and fish
in remote and deep parts of the oceans. When we first developed this
legislation over 30 years ago, such practices were unimaginable. The
illegal, unreported, and unregulated--we call this IUU--fishing on the
high-seas now threatens the good management taking place in U.S. waters
that we control.
Our bill strengthens U.S. leadership in international conservation
and management. It requires the Secretary of Commerce to establish an
international compliance and monitoring program and to provide Congress
with reports on our progress in reducing IUU fishing. This bill also
requires the Secretary to promote international cooperation and
strengthen the ability of regional fishery management organizations to
combat IUU and other harmful fishing practices. In addition, this
legislation allows the use of measures authorized under the High Seas
Driftnet Act to force compliance in cases where regional or
international fishery management organizations are unable to stop IUU
fishing.
I have been pleased with the bipartisan approach we have taken on
this bill. My co-chairman, Senator Inouye, and I have worked together
on this reauthorization, and I look forward to working with my
colleagues on the Commerce Committee to move this legislation forward.
______
By Mr. STEVENS (for himself and Mr. Inouye):
S. 2013. A bill to amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to
implement the Agreement on the Conservation and Management of the
Alaska-Chukotka Polar Bear Population; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I introduce today a bill to implement the
provisions of the ``Agreement Between the Government of the United
States of America and the Government of the Russian Federation on the
Conservation and Management of the Alaska-Chukotka Polar Bear
Population''. This bill is co-sponsored by Senator Inouye.
The United States-Russia Polar Bear Conservation and Management
Implementation Act of 2005 will amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act
adding provisions to create a binational U.S. and Russian Polar Bear
Commission. This commission will be authorized to determine annual take
limits and the adoption of other measures to restrict the taking of
polar bears for subsistence purposes. The Commission will also identify
polar bear habitats and ``develop recommendations for habitat
conservation measures.'' Additionally, it prohibits the possession,
import, export, transport, sale, receipt, acquisition, or purchase of
any polar bear, or any part or product thereof, that is taken in
violation of the Agreement.
This bill will simultaneously support the conservation of U.S. and
Russian Polar Bear populations and the historical traditions of
indigenous peoples in the arctic region.
This implementing legislation for the Polar Bear Treaty is necessary
to establish the needed regulatory and management entities in both the
U.S. and Russia. The shared population of Polar Bears that migrate
between our two nations deserve the added protections and conservation
this bill will provide.
The U.S.-Russian Polar Bear Treaty was completed and signed by both
countries on October 16, 2000. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee
held a hearing on the treaty in June of 2003, and reported it out
favorably on July 23, 2003. The full Senate agreed to the resolution of
advice and consent on the treaty on July 31, 2003. This legislation is
needed for the U.S. to ratify and implement the treaty. The
administration is supportive of the treaty and the proposed
legislation, as are Alaska Natives, the State of Alaska, and
conservation groups.
Russia has indicated that once the U.S. ratifies the treaty, it will
promptly do the same.
____________________