[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.

                          ____________________