[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 25 (Thursday, March 2, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1645-S1657]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr.
Rockefeller, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Feingold,
Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Kohl):
S. 2354. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
reduce the coverage gap in prescription drug coverage under part D of
such title based on savings to the Medicare program resulting from the
negotiation of prescription drug prices; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my
colleague and cosponsor Senator Susan Collins as we introduce the
Medicare Prescription Drug Gap Reduction Act of 2006.
For years now, I have advocated for providing seniors with meaningful
prescription drug coverage. Seniors in this country should never have
to choose between their meals and their medications.
Unfortunately, Congress created a Medicare prescription drug plan
that is confusing and contains a huge coverage gap. These are some of
the reasons that I did not support the legislation that created this
program. But this flawed plan is what passed. Our job now is to help
seniors by fixing the underlying law. I have spoken with Medicare
beneficiaries across Florida and they are understandably concerned
about the new prescription drug benefit. One issue of great concern to
Floridians is the large gap in coverage called the ``doughnut hole.''
The Medicare drug benefit contains a large coverage gap during which
beneficiaries continue to pay premiums but get no drug coverage at all.
For most plans, Medicare will pay 75 percent of initial drug costs up
to $2,250 after a $250 deductible. But then the program pays nothing
until drug expenses reach $5,100. This lack of coverage for drug
spending is often called Medicare's doughnut hole.
More than one-third of all Medicare beneficiaries are projected to
have drug spending that falls in the doughnut hole's range, according
to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Millions of beneficiaries
will pay premiums yet receive no coverage during this time. This is
simply unacceptable.
In response, we are introducing the Medicare Prescription Drug Gap
Reduction Act of 2006 which will reduce the impact of the doughnut hole
on Medicare beneficiaries.
Our bill allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to
negotiate on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries for lower drug prices.
Unfortunately, the law that created the new Medicare drug program
actually prohibits the Secretary from using the purchasing power of
over 40 million seniors to negotiate for lowers prescription drug
prices. The savings generated from allowing negotiations would then be
applied towards reducing the doughnut hole, providing more drug
coverage for Medicare beneficiaries.
A recent analysis was conducted by researchers at the Johns Hopkins
Center for Hospital Finance and Management on the Medicare doughnut
hole. They concluded that ``the gap in coverage could be completely
eliminated if Medicare paid the same prices as the Veterans'
Administration, or Department of Defense and 75 percent of the gap
could be eliminated if Medicare paid the same prices as the Federal
Ceiling Price.'' Our bill gives the Secretary authority similar to
entities like the Veterans' Administration and the Department of
Defense, to negotiate contracts and obtain the lowest possible
prescription drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries.
Allowing the Federal Government to utilize market forces to negotiate
for lower prescription drug prices and using these savings to alleviate
the impact of the doughnut hole is a common-sense approach to providing
Medicare beneficiaries with affordable prescription drugs.
This issue boils down to just one goal--helping seniors. We urge all
of our colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, to join us in this
effort to help lower prescription drug costs for Medicare
beneficiaries.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2354
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare Prescription Drug
Gap Reduction Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. REDUCING COVERAGE GAP.
Section 1860D-2(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395w-102(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking ``paragraph (4)'' and
inserting ``paragraph (4), subject to the increase described
in paragraph (7)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(7) Increase of initial coverage limit based on medicare
savings due to negotiation of drug prices.--For each year
(beginning with 2006), the Secretary shall increase the
initial coverage limit for the year specified in paragraph
(3) so that the aggregate amount of increased expenditures
from the Medicare Prescription Drug Account as a result of
such increase under this paragraph in the year (as estimated
by the Office of the Actuary of the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services) is equal to the aggregate amount of
reduced expenditures from such Account that the Office of the
Actuary estimates will result in the year as a result of
[[Page S1646]]
the application of the amendment made by section 3(a) of the
Medicare Prescription Drug Gap Reduction Act of 2006.''.
SEC. 3. NEGOTIATING FAIR PRICES FOR MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION
DRUGS.
(a) In General.--Section 1860D-11 of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-111) is amended by striking subsection
(i) (relating to noninterference) and inserting the
following:
``(i) Authority To Negotiate Prices With Manufacturers.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (4), in order to
ensure that beneficiaries enrolled under prescription drug
plans and MA-PD plans pay the lowest possible price, the
Secretary shall have authority similar to that of other
Federal entities that purchase prescription drugs in bulk to
negotiate contracts with manufacturers of covered part D
drugs, consistent with the requirements and in furtherance of
the goals of providing quality care and containing costs
under this part.
``(2) Mandatory responsibilities.--The Secretary shall be
required to--
``(A) negotiate contracts with manufacturers of covered
part D drugs for each fallback prescription drug plan under
subsection (g); and
``(B) participate in negotiation of contracts of any
covered part D drug upon request of an approved prescription
drug plan or MA-PD plan.
``(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in paragraph (2) shall
be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary under
paragraph (1) to the mandatory responsibilities under
paragraph (2).
``(4) No particular formulary or price structure.--In order
to promote competition under this part and in carrying out
this part, the Secretary may not require a particular
formulary or institute a price structure for the
reimbursement of covered part D drugs.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section
101 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and
Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173).
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Kyl, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Frist,
Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. McCain, Mr. Domenici, and Mr.
Bingaman):
S. 2355. A bill to amend chapter 27 of title 18, United States Code,
to prohibit the unauthorized construction, financing, or reckless
permitting (on one's land) the construction or use of a tunnel or
subterranean passageway between the United States and another country;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, our borders are our Nation's first
line of defense. They are the key to our homeland, and ensuring their
integrity is vital to our national security.
But there are some who seek to create a means of entering our country
illegally. For years, they've tried to go around the border
checkpoints. Now they are trying to go under them through sophisticated
border tunnels.
In fact, there have been 40 border tunnels financed and constructed
since 9/11--to move humans, drugs, and weapons under the border.
Twenty-one of these were on the California-Mexico border--eight since
January of this year.
This is a serious issue not just for San Diego and California, but
for the entire country.
Surprisingly, there is no law on the books now that makes it a crime
to construct, finance, build, or use a tunnel into the United States.
Last week, I toured a recently discovered tunnel in San Diego with
San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, Police Chief Bill Lansdowne, Sheriff
Bill Kolender and various Federal Government officials from the
Department of Homeland Security.
This tunnel is the largest, most sophisticated underground passageway
ever discovered; approximately half a mile long (8 football fields); at
its deepest point, more than nine stories below ground; equipped with a
drainage system, cement flooring for traction, lighting, and a pulley
system; disguised as a produce distribution company known as ``V & F
Distributors, LLC''; and accessible only through a small office inside
this warehouse, covered by four square tiles.
The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement began investigating
the case two years ago, and raided the tunnel last month from the
Mexican side not knowing if or where an opening on the U.S. would be
found. They discovered over 2,000 pounds of marijuana on the Mexican
side of the border and approximately 300 on the U.S. side.
The legislation which I am introducing today--joined by Senator Kyl
as the Republican lead, as well as Senators Frist, Cantwell, Boxer,
Hutchison, McCain, Bingaman and Domenici--throws the book at those who
build these tunnels and subterranean passageways into the United
States.
It would: criminalize the construction or financing of an
unauthorized tunnel or subterranean passage across an international
border into the United States with a term of imprisonment up to 20
years; punish those who recklessly permit others to construct or use an
unauthorized tunnel on their land with a term of imprisonment of up to
10 years; punish those who use a tunnel to smuggle aliens, weapons,
drugs, terrorists, or illegal goods by doubling the sentence for the
underlying offense; in addition to imprisonment, ensure that assets
involved in the offense, or any property traceable to the offense, may
be subject to forfeiture; and instruct the U.S. Sentencing Commission
to promulgate or amend sentencing guidelines to provide for criminal
penalties for persons convicted under this bill, and to take into
account the gravity of this crime when considering the base offense
levels.
The legislation is critical. We must secure every aspect of our
borders.
Since 9/11: forty border tunnels have been discovered in the United
States; all but one have been on the southern border; twenty-one of the
tunnels were along the California-Mexico border; eight of the tunnels
were discovered in San Diego since the beginning of the year; these
tunnels range in complexity from simple ``gopher holes'' a few feet
long at the border to massive drug-cartel built mega-tunnels, costing
hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to construct.
The need for this legislation is urgent. We must secure every aspect
of our borders, including those we can't always see. And it is in our
national security interest that we find these tunnels and prosecute
those who construct, finance or recklessly permit the use of these
tunnels on their land or property to the fullest extent of the law.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2355
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 ``Border Tunnel Prevention
Act''.
SEC. 2. CONSTRUCTION OF BORDER TUNNEL OR PASSAGE.
(a) In General.--Chapter 27 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 554. Border tunnels and passages
``(a) Any person who knowingly constructs or finances the
construction of a tunnel or subterranean passage that crosses
the international border between the United States and
another country, other than a lawfully authorized tunnel or
passage known to the Secretary of Homeland Security and
subject to inspection by the Bureau of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, shall be imprisoned for not more than 20
years.
``(b) Any person who recklessly permits the construction or
use of a tunnel or passage described in subsection (a) on
land that the person owns or controls shall be imprisoned for
not more than 10 years.
``(c) Any person who uses a tunnel or passage described in
subsection (a) to unlawfully smuggle an alien, goods (in
violation of section 545), controlled substances, weapons of
mass destruction (including biological weapons), or a member
of a terrorist organization (as defined in section
212(a)(3)(B)(vi) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi))) shall be subject to twice the
penalty that would have otherwise been imposed had the
unlawful activity not made use of such a tunnel or
passage.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
27 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``Sec. 554. Border tunnels and passages.''.
(c) Criminal Forfeiture.--Section 982(a)(6) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``554,'' before
``1425,''.
SEC. 3. DIRECTIVE TO THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION.
(a) In General.--Pursuant to its authority under section
994 of title 28, United States Code, and in accordance with
this section, the United States Sentencing Commission shall
promulgate or amend sentencing guidelines to provide for
increased penalties for persons convicted of offenses
described in section 554 of title 18, United States Code, as
added by section 1.
(b) Requirements.--In carrying out this section, the United
States Sentencing Commission shall--
[[Page S1647]]
(1) ensure that the sentencing guidelines, policy
statements, and official commentary reflect the serious
nature of the offenses described in section 554 of title 18,
United States Code, and the need for aggressive and
appropriate law enforcement action to prevent such offenses;
(2) provide adequate base offense levels for offenses under
such section;
(3) account for any aggravating or mitigating circumstances
that might justify exceptions, including--
(A) the use of a tunnel or passage described in subsection
(a) of such section to facilitate other felonies; and
(B) the circumstances for which the sentencing guidelines
currently provide applicable sentencing enhancements;
(4) ensure reasonable consistency with other relevant
directives, other sentencing guidelines, and statutes;
(5) make any necessary and conforming changes to the
sentencing guidelines and policy statements; and
(6) ensure that the sentencing guidelines adequately meet
the purposes of sentencing set forth in section 3553(a)(2) of
title 18, United States Code.
______
By Mr. LEAHY:
S. 2356. A bill to prohibit profiteering and fraud relating to
military action, relief, and reconstruction efforts, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``War
Profiteering Prevention Act of 2006.'' This bill creates criminal
penalties for war profiteers and cheats who, for ill-gotten gain, would
exploit the United States Government's taxpayer-funded war and
reconstruction efforts in Iraq and elsewhere around the world. I am
pleased that Senator Dorgan has also included this legislation in the
``Honest Leadership and Accountability in Contracting Act of 2006''
that is also being introduced today.
I previously introduced this legislation in 2003. It came to be
cosponsored by 21 Senators, including Senators Clinton, Dodd,
Feinstein, Johnson, Kerry, Landrieu, Bill Nelson, Wyden, Dayton,
Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Jeffords, Kennedy, Kohl, Lieberman and Reid.
The Senate Appropriations Committee unanimously accepted these
provisions during a Senate Appropriations Committee markup of the $87
billion appropriations bill for Iraq and Afghanistan for Fiscal Year
2004, and it passed the Senate. It was the right thing to do then, and
it is the right thing to do now.
Regrettably, the Republican leadership in the House stripped this
legislation out of that appropriations bill, and we regrettably have
been witnessing the results in the meantime. Billions appropriated for
the continuing war efforts and for reconstruction are unaccounted for,
and fraud has been rampant. The recent report of the special inspector
general confirms that U.S. taxpayer funds appropriated for
reconstruction have been lost and diverted.
There are, of course, anti-fraud laws to protect against waste of tax
dollars at home. But none expressly prohibits war profiteering, and
none expressly confers jurisdiction for fraud overseas. This bill would
criminalize ``war profiteering''--overcharging taxpayers in order to
defraud and to profit excessively from a war, military action, or
reconstruction efforts. It would prohibit any fraud against the United
States involving a contract for the provision of goods or services in
connection with a war, military action, or for relief or reconstruction
activities. This new crime would be a felony, subject to criminal
penalties of up to 20 years in prison and fines of up to $1 million or
twice the illegal gross profits of the crime.
The bill also prohibits false statements connected with the provision
of goods or services in connection with a war or reconstruction effort.
This crime would also be a felony, subject to criminal penalties of up
to 10 years in prison and fines of up to $1 million or twice the
illegal gross profits of the crime. These are strong and focused
sanctions that are narrowly tailored to punish and deter fraud or
excessive profiteering in contracts, here and abroad, related to the
United States Government's war or reconstruction efforts.
Congress has sent more than a quarter of a trillion dollars to Iraq
with too little accountability and too few financial controls.
Disturbingly, there are widespread reports of waste, fraud and war
profiteering in Iraq, and the special inspector general examining the
use of reconstruction funds in Iraq recently found that billions of
taxpayer dollars remain unaccounted for.
For example, a recent report on 60 Minutes revealed that more than
$50 billion of U.S. taxpayer funds have gone to private contractors
hired to guard bases, drive trucks, feed and shelter the troops and
rebuild in Iraq. This is more than the entire annual budget of the
Department of Homeland Security.
In addition, just this week, the New York Times, reported that the
Army has decided to reimburse a Halliburton subsidiary--Kellogg Brown &
Root--for nearly all of its disputed costs on a $2.41 billion no-bid
contract to deliver fuel and repair oil equipment in Iraq, even though
the Pentagon's own auditors had identified more than $250 million in
charges as potentially excessive or unjustified. That article further
notes that the Army's decision to pay all but 3.8 percent of these
questionable charges lies well outside the normal practice of the
military.
The recent revelations about contract fraud and abuse in Iraq make
clear that the approach to reconstruction in Iraq has been a formula
for mischief. We need strong disincentives for those who would take
advantage of the chaos of war to defraud American taxpayers.
We also need to strengthen the tools available to federal prosecutors
to combat war profiteering. Despite well-publicized allegations of
fraud and war profiteering in Iraq, so far the Government has brought
only one case to recover these funds--a civil lawsuit brought under the
False Claims Act. That case involves a contractor accused of
overcharging the Government millions of dollars under a contract to
help distribute new Iraqi currency during the first months after the
collapse of the Hussein government. The Government's ability to recover
funds in that case is being questioned by the defendant, however, who
argues that legal technicalities may constrain current law from
reaching all of the conduct of contractors working in Iraq or elsewhere
overseas. This bill would address this problem by providing clear
authority for the Government to seek criminal penalties and to recover
excessive profits for war profiteering overseas. It should already be
law, but three years ago the House Republican leadership rejected it.
Every penny of our taxpayers' money must be expended carefully and
purposefully and protected from waste. The message sent by this bill is
that any act taken to financially exploit the crisis situation in Iraq
or elsewhere overseas for exorbitant financial gain is unacceptable,
reprehensible--and criminal. Such deceit demeans and exploits the
sacrifices that our military personnel and National Guard are making in
Iraq and Afghanistan.
When U.S. taxpayers have been called upon to bear the burden of
reconstruction contracts--where contracts are awarded in a system that
offers little competition and even less accountability--concerns about
wartime profiteering are a grave matter. Historical efforts to stem
such profiteering have been successful: Congress implemented excessive-
profits taxes and contract renegotiation laws after both World Wars,
and again after the Korean War. Advocating exactly such an approach,
President Roosevelt once declared it our duty to ensure that ``ar few
do not gain from the sacrifices of the many.'' Then, as now, our
Government cannot in good faith ask its people to sacrifice for
reconstruction efforts that allow so many others to profit unfairly.
There is urgency to this important measure because criminal statutes
cannot be applied retroactively. These controls should have been put in
place at least three years ago; they need to be in place now. I urge
that the Senate make prompt passage of this legislation a high
priority. I hope that this time the House Republican leadership will
have learned the hard lessons of the last three years and that, this
time, they will allow this bill's enactment, on behalf of the Nation's
taxpayers. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2356
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
[[Page S1648]]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``War Profiteering Prevention
Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF PROFITEERING.
(a) Prohibition.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1039. War profiteering and fraud relating to military
action, relief, and reconstruction efforts
``(a) Prohibition.--
``(1) In general.--Whoever, in any matter involving a
contract or the provision of goods or services, directly or
indirectly, in connection with a war, military action, or
relief or reconstruction activities within the jurisdiction
of the United States Government, knowingly and willfully--
``(A)(i) executes or attempts to execute a scheme or
artifice to defraud the United States; or
``(ii) materially overvalues any good or service with the
specific intent to defraud and excessively profit from the
war, military action, or relief or reconstruction activities;
shall be fined under paragraph (2), imprisoned not more than
20 years, or both; or
``(B)(i) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick,
scheme, or device a material fact;
``(ii) makes any materially false, fictitious, or
fraudulent statements or representations; or
``(iii) makes or uses any materially false writing or
document knowing the same to contain any materially false,
fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under paragraph (2) imprisoned not more than
10 years, or both.
``(2) Fine.--A person convicted of an offense under
paragraph (1) may be fined the greater of--
``(A) $1,000,000; or
``(B) if such person derives profits or other proceeds from
the offense, not more than twice the gross profits or other
proceeds.
``(b) Extraterritorial Jurisdiction.--There is
extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under
this section.
``(c) Venue.--A prosecution for an offense under this
section may be brought--
``(1) as authorized by chapter 211 of this title;
``(2) in any district where any act in furtherance of the
offense took place; or
``(3) in any district where any party to the contract or
provider of goods or services is located.''.
(2) Table of sections.--The table of sections for chapter
47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``1039. War profiteering and fraud relating to military action, relief,
and reconstruction efforts.''.
(b) Civil Forfeiture.--Section 981(a)(1)(C) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``1039,'' after
``1032,''.
(c) Criminal Forfeiture.--Section 982(a)(2)(B) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``or 1030'' and
inserting ``1030, or 1039''.
(d) RICO.--Section 1956(c)(7)(D) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by inserting the following: ``, section 1039
(relating to war profiteering and fraud relating to military
action, relief, and reconstruction efforts)'' after
``liquidating agent of financial institution),''.
______
By Mr. KENNEDY:
S. 2357. A bill to provide for economic security and prosperity; to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, these have not been easy times for vast
numbers of Americans. In many ways, the American dream is in peril for
millions of our fellow citizens as global forces have caused the
economy to shift against them.
Complacency is not the answer. Few things more affect the way we live
than our shrinking and rapidly changing world. Unless we begin to
address this immense challenge more effectively, the Nation will pay a
high price for years and years to come. Now is the right time to
reinvest in America's future, which is why I am today introducing the
Right TRACK Act.
American families across the Nation know the problem. It is measured
in jobs moving overseas, stagnant or even falling wages and benefits,
our schools losing ground compared to other nations, and fewer
opportunities to attain the American dream. Indeed, the course we are
on today is a course that will make the American dream the impossible
dream.
America cannot move forward if we cut back on investments in
education, invention, and innovation, as the administration has
proposed. We cannot compete in the world if our companies and our
workers are saddled with soaring costs for health care. We cannot
advance if we fail to invest in our own employees by paying them a
decent wage, by taking steps to enable companies to keep jobs here at
home, and by investing wisely in our own economic growth.
The 20th century was widely hailed as the American century, but the
21st century is up for grabs. No nation is guaranteed a future of
lasting prosperity. We have to work for it. We have to sacrifice for
it.
We have a choice. We can continue to be buffeted by the harsh winds
of the global economy or we can think anew and guide the currents of
globalization with a new progressive vision that strengthens America
and equips our citizens to move confidently to the future.
Competing better in a race to the bottom is not the answer. Equality
of opportunity--a bedrock principle of our democracy--is suffering
already. Today, children born of parents in the bottom 20 percent of
income have only a 1 in 15 chance of reaching the top 20 percent in
their lifetimes. Also disturbing is the fact that those born in the
middle are more likely to sink to the bottom than to rise to the top.
And those born at the top are likely to stay at the top.
We cannot and should not compete by lowering wages. Instead, we must
open new doors and new avenues for all Americans to make the most of
their God-given talents and rekindle the fires of innovation in our
society. By doing so, we can turn this era of globalization into a new
era of opportunity for America.
As Thomas Jefferson said, ``Every generation needs a new
revolution.'' And I believe the revolution for this generation is to
master our own destiny in the new global economy.
What is most required is a new vision for America's future in the
global community. Our goal is to rekindle the American Dream, so that
if people work hard and play by the rules, they can succeed in life, be
better off than their parents, live in good neighborhoods, raise strong
families in safe surroundings, work in decent jobs with decent pay and
decent benefits and a decent retirement.
To do all that, we must make a commitment to lifelong education, to
prepare every man, woman, and child for the new world of intensifying
competition and increasingly sophisticated technologies.
We must create high-quality jobs for the years ahead by investing in
research and development, encouraging innovation, and modernizing all
aspects of our infrastructure.
We must level the playing field for American businesses and
employees, to ensure fair worldwide competition and preserve good jobs
in the United States.
And we must make a fair commitment to assist and care for workers and
communities harmed by the forces of globalization.
We can do all that, but only if we make the right choices, and the
time to start is now.
I strongly believe that our highest priority must be a world class
education for every American. We must seek a future where America
competes with other nations, not by reducing our employees' pay and
outsourcing their jobs but by raising their skills.
As a Nation, we must invest in Americans by ensuring access to the
highest quality educational opportunities. We must make the American
worker and manager the best educated, best trained, and most capable in
the world. We need to nourish the capacities of every person in the
nation.
To do that, we must begin in the earliest years. Research proves
conclusively that what we do for children's early education and
development does more to ensure their later success in school than any
other investment we can make. It is far less costly to society to spend
millions to put young children on the right track from the start,
instead of spending billions to rescue them from the wrong track later.
In fact, one study concludes that in the long run, we save $13 for
every dollar invested in the early education of our youngest citizens.
Prevention works in health care, and it can work in education too.
For generations, we have treated education as a three-legged stool--
elementary and middle school, high school, and college. To create a
solid foundation for the future, we have to add a fourth leg--early
childhood education.
In elementary and secondary education, the No Child Left Behind Act
was a pioneering reform that held great promise when it was signed into
law by President Bush 4 years ago.
[[Page S1649]]
No Child Left Behind was not just an abstract goal. It was a moral
commitment to every parent and every child and every school in America,
and I was proud to stand with President Bush when he signed it. It soon
became clear, however, that to the administration, it was more a slogan
than a promise. Too many parents, too many children, too many schools
are still waiting for the help we pledged.
We can't reform education without the resources needed to pay for the
reforms. Promises alone won't provide the qualified teachers, high
standards in every classroom, good afterschool activities, and the
range of supplemental services that every good school needs if it is to
provide the right help for students who need it.
No Child Left Behind was also a promise that every child counts--
Black or White or Brown, rich or poor. It was a promise that disabled
children too will have the qualified teachers and individual support
they need to succeed in school and in life.
We must also do more to help students prepare for college, afford
college, be admitted to college and complete college. In 1950, when I
graduated from school, only 15 percent of jobs required some
postsecondary training. Today, the number is over 60 percent and rising
rapidly.
However, we are witnessing a growing gulf in college attendance
between the rich and poor. The gap is shameful. Each year, 400,000
college-ready students don't attend a 4-year college because they can't
afford it. Never before has the financial challenge of attending
college been greater for young students.
It is time for America to agree that cost must never be a barrier to
college education. Every child in America should be offered a contract,
when they reach eighth grade, making clear that if they work hard,
finish high school, and are accepted for college, we will guarantee
them the cost of earning a degree. The Right TRACK Act authorizes
Federal grants to States to support the creation of ``Contract for
Educational Opportunity'' grants to cover students' unmet need up to
the cost of attendance at 2-year and 4-year public colleges in that
State.
Perhaps nowhere is it more obvious that we are falling behind than in
math and science. For a nation that prides itself on innovation and
discovery, the downward slide is shocking. In recent years, we have
dropped to 28th in the industrial world in math education. Each year,
China graduates three times as many engineers as we do. Other nations
are gaining on us because they give higher priority to education.
The last time America was shocked into realizing we were unacceptably
behind in math and science was in 1958, when the Soviet Union launched
Sputnik. Republican President Eisenhower and a Democratic Congress
responded by passing the National Defense Education Act, and almost
overnight we doubled the Federal investment in education.
In fact, throughout our history, we have remade American education to
conquer the challenges of each time. In the mid-1800s, with the
Industrial Revolution in full swing, we created free and mandatory
public schools before most other nations did. And to stay ahead, we
rapidly established public high schools at the start of the last
century to keep pace with a growing economy.
Once again, we did something comparable at the end of World War II.
We passed the GI Bill of Rights and gave every returning veteran the
chance for a college education. The Nation reaped a $7 return for every
dollar it invested in their education. The result was the ``greatest
generation,'' and it would never have happened without the GI bill.
That is the kind of initiative we need today, because the need is
just as great. We need a new Education Bill of Rights, a new National
Defense Education Act, for our own day and generation in science and
math.
Let's make college free for students training to become math or
science teachers.
Let's make college and graduate school free for low- and middle-
income math and science students.
Let's see that our standards are internationally competitive, so that
our high school graduates can succeed in this new economy. Let's offer
incentives and other support for schools to develop and implement
rigorous standards and courses in math and science.
The Right TRACK Act responds to each of these challenges. The
legislation provides grants to low- and middle-income students studying
in science, technology, engineering, and math fields, as well as
critical-need foreign languages. The bill provides larger grants to
students studying to become teachers in these fields who agree to work
in a high poverty school for at least 4 years. It also provides
teachers with tax credits, increased loan forgiveness as additional
incentives to continue to teach where they are needed the most and
invests in teacher training programs supporting their continuing
education.
The Right TRACK Act also provides resources to states to create P-16
Preparedness Councils to help States with their efforts to improve
State standards and ensure that they are aligned with the expectations
of colleges, employers, and the armed services. The bill also provides
funding to States working in collaboration to establish common
standards and assessments.
The bill also directs resources to high need schools so they can
invest in math, science, engineering, and technology textbooks and
laboratories to ensure their students have equal access to a curriculum
that will provide them with the skills they need to be successful in
the 21st century global economy.
It is becoming increasingly important for students to become exposed
to and immersed in other languages and cultures. In recent years,
foreign language needs have significantly increased throughout the
public and private sector due to the presence of a wider range of
security threats, the emergence of new nation states, and the
globalization of the U.S. economy. American businesses increasingly
need employees experienced in foreign languages and international
cultures to manage a culturally diverse workforce. Foreign language
proficiency is a consideration in 44 percent of hiring decisions and 66
percent of retention decisions. Currently, the U.S. Government requires
34,000 employees with foreign language skills in 100 languages across
more than 80 Federal agencies.
The Right TRACK Act responds to these needs by providing grants for
elementary and secondary critical-need language programs, summer
institutes to improve teachers' knowledge and instruction of foreign
languages and international content, and study abroad and foreign
language study opportunities for high school students, undergraduate,
and graduate students.
We must also continue to invest in our current workforce. The Right
TRACK Act builds on existing formula funds for job training with
competitive grants to support innovative strategies to meet emerging
labor market needs.
From our earliest days as a nation, education has been the engine of
the American dream. Our country is home to the greatest universities in
the world, and our education system has produced the world's leading
scientists, writers, musicians, and inventors. We cannot let these
achievements stall now. Slogans aren't strong enough. We have to put
first things first and give children, parents, schools, communities and
States the support they need to refuel the amazing engine of education
and keep our country great in the years ahead.
Beyond education, we must recognize that the foundation of our
prosperity in this global world is to remain on the cutting edge of
technology and medical and scientific breakthroughs in the years ahead
and translate those advances into reliable products and services. A
strong and fully developed infrastructure will provide the backbone for
that success.
America has always been a world leader in research and development,
but we can no longer take our success for granted. Even in highly
skilled industries, where our technology and infrastructure have
preserved our competitive advantage we are increasingly at risk today.
Rapidly growing economies in Asia, Eastern Europe, and South America
are now formidable competitors, developing their economies into engines
of growth based not just on low wages but on well-educated citizens,
advanced infrastructure, and well-run businesses.
In Bangalore, India, a G.E. center employs more than 2,200 Ph.D.s.
These workers are not sewing buttons on
[[Page S1650]]
shirts; they are carrying out advanced research on jet engines and
developing mathematical models for investment. An Intel research and
development center in the same city employs 3,000 engineers designing
the next generation of computer chips.
However, despite increasing international competition, the Federal
commitment to research outside the defense arena has declined under the
Bush administration. Of particular concern is the drop in funding for
basic research. Much of the research conducted by private companies is
focused on getting a product quickly to market. That is not the basic
research that lays new foundations for new discoveries. Funding for
basic research has declined in the past few years at the National
Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Department
of Energy, and other key scientific agencies. And overall the Federal
investment in research which once exceeded one percent of our GDP is
now less than half a percent.
We cannot allow this trend to continue. The Right TRACK Act will help
America maintain its position as the leader in innovation. The Right
TRACK Act will not only make the R&D credit permanent but expand it to
encourage small businesses, universities, and Federal laboratories to
collaborate on research. And it will increase R&D funding for major
Federal research agencies by 10 percent that we double it in 7 years.
Innovation is important for its own sake, but it is also what creates
jobs. We are currently seeing our investment in R&D paying dividends in
high growth, high technology industries such as nanotechnology. We need
to help usher these new technologies out of the laboratory and into the
marketplace. The Right TRACK Act would encourage investment in
nanotechnology businesses and increase support for critical programs at
the Department of Commerce that help manufacturers adopt and
commercialize new technologies.
We also must invest in innovation and infrastructure--highways, mass
transit, new sources of clean energy, health I.T., and more. The Right
TRACK Act will authorize funds for capital improvements to Amtrak and
expands and increases tax credits for school renovation and
construction that will equip schools with 21st century technology.
These investments not only improve the quality of our lives, but they
also create the quality jobs that drive our economy forward.
Broadband infrastructure is a perfect example. Two years ago,
President Bush declared that every American should have access to
affordable broadband technology by the year 2007. But the
administration still has no plan to get us there. In the meantime, we
have fallen to 16th in the world in broadband access behind countries
such as Japan and the Netherlands that have broadband speeds four and
five times faster than ours.
Widespread use of basic broadband would add $500 billion to our
economy and create 1.2 million jobs. Clearly, this is the kind of
infrastructure we should invest in to produce good jobs and economic
growth in the future. The Right TRACK Act also puts us on the ``right
track'' to take full advantage of that economic opportunity.
We also live in an age exploding with medical miracles. A generation
ago, few could possibly have imagined the advances in science and
biology that have revolutionized the practice of medicine. No one today
can predict how new discoveries in the life sciences will improve our
lives and change the world, but we can be certain the effects will be
profound.
Thanks to the genius and dedication of scientists, doctors, and
business leaders, the potential of medical research is virtually
limitless. Diagnosing a faulty heart valve or blocked artery once meant
risky and traumatic exploratory surgery. Today, doctors make the
diagnosis with a miniature camera and fiber optic cable, and the
patient can walk out of the office moments later.
A few years ago, it seemed inconceivable that anyone could decipher
the entire genetic code--the very blueprint of life. But today, doctors
across the globe can read that sequence on their computer screens and
use the information to search for new ways to treat cancer, diabetes,
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and other major illnesses.
Continuing at the forefront of the life sciences may well be the most
important way for America to retain its leadership in the world economy
in the coming years.
Another of the fundamental challenges of the global economy is that
our companies are losing business and our people are losing jobs
because they are not competing on a level playing field.
Foreign governments manipulate their currencies to give their
products an unfair advantage. They refuse to enforce basic labor
protections like a minimum wage. They use abhorrent practices like
child labor and forced labor. As a result, these countries can produce
goods much more cheaply and dominate the global marketplace.
Our own trade deficit is skyrocketing because we are producing less
at home and buying more from other nations. Last year, we imported a
record $726 billion more than we exported--an alltime high.
We can't continue down this reckless path. It is too damaging to our
economy. Over $2.2 trillion of our national debt today is owed to
foreign investors and foreign governments. America has always
controlled its own destiny but when foreigners are bankrolling our
Government, our destiny is no longer in our hands.
It is not just our companies that suffer--our workers are also
struggling because the playing field is so uneven. More and more of our
companies are shipping U.S. jobs overseas. Fifty-four percent of
America's top companies have already done so. Even governments are part
of the offshoring bandwagon. In my home State of Massachusetts, the
State government has hired contractors that used workers from India to
process Medicaid data and answer questions about food stamps.
The Nation as a whole has lost nearly 3 million manufacturing jobs
since 2001. The pain is widespread--48 States have lost manufacturing
jobs under President Bush. These are not just blue-collar jobs.
Millions of high-paying, white-collar jobs are also at risk of being
shipped overseas, especially in the fields of medicine and computers.
The disappearance of these good jobs is reducing our standard of
living and threatening the very existence of the American middle class.
President Bush's so-called economic recovery has the worst job creation
record of any recovery since World War II.
Those fortunate enough to have jobs are finding that their wages are
stagnant even though other costs are soaring. College tuition is up 46
percent since 2001. Housing costs are up 49 percent. Health insurance
is up 58 percent. Gasoline is $2.33 a gallon--40 percent higher than it
was 5 years ago.
The foundation of the America dream is weakening. That is because
more of what our economy produces in this recovery now goes to business
profits and executive suite salaries, and less to employees, than at
any time since such records began in 1929. Wages are down, but profits
are up by more than 60 percent.
There is a better way. We need policies that reject the Walmart-
ization of the American workforce.
We must level the playing field in the competition for good jobs and
demonstrate leadership in promoting fair wages for workers around
the world. This is not just an economic issue--it is a moral issue. The
Right TRACK Act will help raise living standards worldwide by
prioritizing the elimination of forced labor and child labor in U.S.
trade agreements and providing incentives for multinational
corporations to treat their foreign workers with respect. It will also
level the playing field for American businesses by ensuring that
countries cannot manipulate their currencies to give their goods an
unfair advantage in the global market.
Rejecting the race to the bottom also means reaffirming our
commitment to workers here at home. We must stop rewarding companies by
giving them favorable tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas. The Right
TRACK Act corrects this nonsensical policy by eliminating the tax
loophole that allows companies to avoid paying taxes on money they have
earned overseas. The act also addresses the offshoring epidemic by
requiring companies to give workers better notice when their jobs could
be offshored to other countries
[[Page S1651]]
and ensuring that the Government does not use hard-earned tax dollars
to ship jobs overseas.
Our commitment to workers at home also demands that we give them
their fair share of the economic growth that globalization brings. In
this century, just as in the last, we must ensure that workers can
organize and have a voice at work. The Right TRACK Act preserves the
basic rights of American workers by protecting employees who try to
organize from employer intimidation, supporting the democratic right of
a majority of workers to choose a representative through fair and
neutral card-check procedures, and requiring employers to come to the
table and negotiate a first contract.
We owe a particular duty to those Americans who lose their jobs due
to the effects of trade or economic downturns. When workers lose their
jobs in the global economy, we should help in the difficult and painful
transition to new employment with top-notch job training and income
assistance for their families until they get another paycheck. The
Right TRACK Act gives workers and communities harmed by trade the
support they deserve. It expands the Trade Adjustment Assistance
Program to include service workers and workers who lose their jobs due
to increased trade with countries like China and India. It also
improves funding levels for training programs, provides wage insurance
for older workers who lose their jobs, and helps workers to retain
their health care coverage during times of transition.
And it is a scandal that the minimum wage has been stuck at $5.15 an
hour for the past 9 years, below the poverty line for a family of
three. It is the lowest the minimum wage has been in real value in more
than 50 years. How can so many Republicans in Congress keep voting
against any increase? Why can't we all at least agree that no one who
works for a living in America should have to live in poverty? The Right
TRACK Act gives these hardworking Americans a long overdue raise by
increasing the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour in three steps.
America has to rise to each and every dimension of this challenge. We
can do it by creating a new culture of innovation and creativity that
keeps our Nation in the lead in the global market place--by equipping
every American to compete and win in the new global economy. Only then
will our economy continue to grow and prosper. Only then will the good
jobs of the future be made in the U.S.A.
The same can-do spirit of innovation, invention, and progress that
brought us the automobile, the airplane, and the computer can do it
again. Those advances brought the American dream closer for all, and we
can't afford to let it slip away now.
The essence of the American dream is the ability to provide a better
life for yourself and your family. At its very heart are a good job,
first-class education, good health care, and a secure retirement. Some
say the dream is out of reach in today's global economy. But I am here
today to tell you it doesn't have to be that way. We can revitalize the
American dream.
I have full confidence in our ability to meet these challenges and
reach new heights of discovery prosperity, and progress. Passing the
Right TRACK Act that I've introduced today is an important step towards
ensuring that the American dream remains attainable for generations to
come, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
______
By Mr. OBAMA:
S. 2358. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a
Hospital Quality Report Card Initiative to report on health care
quality in Veterans Affairs hospitals; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
______
By Mr. OBAMA:
S. 2359. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
establish a Hospital Quality Report Card Initiative under the Medicare
program to assess and report on health care quality in hospitals; to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that
would expand and improve quality reporting for our Nation's hospitals
through the establishment of a national Hospital Quality Report Card
Initiative.
Study after study has documented that health care quality in the
United States is inconsistent and inadequate. The landmark 2003 RAND
report by Beth McGlynn found that the chance of Americans getting
recommended care is not much greater than the flip of coin. For many
conditions, the chances are even worse--only about a third of diabetics
and a quarter of patients with atrial fibrillation and hip fractures
receive the right treatment, as do only about 10 percent of patients
with alcohol dependence. Patients are suffering, and the financial
costs of poor care are staggering. We can and must do more to ensure
that every patient gets the right care, at the right time, in the right
way.
One way to help improve health care quality is to measure and report
the quality of care in our nation's hospitals. Hospital quality reports
can help patients and consumers choose the hospital that will best
serve their health needs. Purchasers and payers can use hospital
quality information to help their decision-making about where employees
and members can go for care. Hospitals and health care professionals
would similarly benefit from identification of areas of need, and
opportunities for quality improvement and cost containment. And
finally, with greater quality reporting and transparency, we can begin
to have an honest dialogue about health care quality and how to reform
our health care system.
Several States have already developed and implemented hospital report
card initiatives, and I am proud to say that Illinois began its own
report card initiative in January of this year--an initiative that I
spearheaded when I served in the Illinois State Senate.
On the national level, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
(CMS) and the Hospital Quality Alliance have partnered to identify and
encourage submission of quality measures for several health conditions,
on a voluntary basis, in exchange for greater federal reimbursement.
The Deficit Reduction Act codified this initiative earlier this year.
The Hospital Report Card Act, which I am introducing today, takes
quality measurement one step further, by mandating that the Secretary
expand and improve upon current quality reporting for hospitals. Within
18 months, the Secretary would establish a formal Hospital Report Card
Initiative, and publish reports on individual hospital quality using
data submitted for the value based purchasing program at CMS, but also
including other data available to the Secretary. The report cards would
report quality measures that align with those used in the National
Healthcare Quality Report, including measures of effectiveness, safety,
timeliness, efficiency, patient-centeredness, and equity. In addition,
the report cards would provide information on other quality priorities
for patients, such as staffing levels of nurses, rates of infections
acquired in hospitals, volume of procedures performed, and availability
of specialized care. The Secretary would also report measures of
relevance to a number of priority populations, including women,
children and minorities.
The bill requires the Secretary to take steps to ensure that all
reported data is accurate and fairly represents hospital quality, and
that hospitals have an opportunity to participate in the development of
the report card initiative. I also want to make sure that sick patients
have full access to the best hospitals, and so the report cards will
risk-adjust quality data, so that hospitals are not inadvertently
penalized for caring for more challenging patient populations.
We are hearing a lot of rhetoric about patient empowerment and
consumer-driven health plans. However, we can't expect patients to make
the best choices for their health care in the absence of accurate
information on quality and costs. Similarly, we can't expect hospitals
to recognize their areas of deficiencies or strengths without a
critical look inwards. Finally, we can't expect the Nation at large to
support and embrace healthcare reform without greater awareness of
quality problems.
The Hospital Quality Report Card Act will help the Nation take one
step closer to improving health care quality and containing costs, and
I hope my colleagues will join me in passing this critical legislation.
[[Page S1652]]
______
By Mr. WYDEN:
S. 2360. A bill to ensure and promote a free and open Internet for
all Americans; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, a headline in today's Wall Street Journal
warns consumers that they will soon face a ``pay to play'' Internet
where those businesses and consumers who want to continue to see equal
content get equal treatment will have to pay more. Rather than let them
continue to have the freedom to choose whatever content, applications
and services they want, the big network operators want to control the
content consumers can access. Allowing the big network operators to
discriminate on the Net is bad news for consumers, small businesses,
schools, libraries, nonprofits and any other user who enjoys their
freedom of access.
That is why today I am proposing legislation that will codify the
principle of network neutrality. I want consumers, small businesses and
every other Internet user to continue to enjoy tomorrow the full array
of content, service and applications they enjoy today.
My legislation, the Internet Non-Discrimination Act of 2006, will
establish the principle of network neutrality by requiring the
operators of the network to treat all content on the Internet equally.
It will ensure transparency so that everyone can easily determine all
rates, terms and conditions for the provision of any communications.
Transparency coupled with a complaint process before the Federal
Communications Commission will encourage compliance.
This legislation has been developed in consultation with a number of
consumer groups and businesses, and I ask unanimous consent the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2360
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 ``Internet Non-Discrimination
Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Since passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
the Internet has grown robustly. Today, Americans are
changing how they access the Internet, moving from dial-up to
broadband for their home connections. According to the Pew
Internet and American Life Project, 72 percent of Americans
use the Internet and 59 percent of Americans with home
Internet have a high-speed Internet connection.
(2) Americans use the Internet for many daily activities.
Over 17 percent of Americans have sold something over the
Internet. Everyday, approximately 60,000,000 Americans use
search engines to get access to information. 80 percent of
Americans have looked online for health care information. In
growing numbers, Americans are using the Internet to place
phone calls, watch their favorite televisions shows or
movies, and play games.
(3) The growth of the Internet and its success are due in
large part to the freedom that has always existed on the
content and applications layer of the Internet. Innovation
has thrived on this layer, as anyone with a good idea has the
ability to access consumers. The continuation of this freedom
is essential for future innovation.
(4) Freedom on the content and applications layer has also
led to robust competition for retail goods for consumers.
Consumers can shop at thousands upon thousands of retailers
from their home computers, including small businesses located
miles away in other towns, States, and even countries.
(5) Such freedom is leading to the development of important
new entertainment offerings, on-demand video and movie
purchases, Internet Protocol television, and enhanced gaming
options. The entertainment options available in the future
will only be limited by the bandwidth that can be used and
the innovation of people all over the world.
(6) Despite the growth of the Internet and increased access
to the Internet for Americans, there is very little choice in
who provides them high-speed Internet access. According to an
April 2005 White Paper by Harold Feld and Gregory Rose, et.
al., entitled, ``Connecting the Public: The Truth About
Municipal Broadband'' only 2 percent of Americans get high-
speed Internet access from someone other than their local
phone company or cable provider. According to the Federal
Communications Commission, approximately 20 percent of
Americans do not have a high-speed Internet access provider
that offers them service.
(7) As more and more Americans get high-speed access to the
Internet without having much choice of who their provider
will be, it is important that Congress protect the freedom on
the Internet to ensure its continued success.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) Application or service.--The term ``application or
service'' means any information or service--
(A) by which an end-user through software or a device
engages in an exchange of data or information; and
(B) conveyed over communications.
(2) Bits.--The term ``bits'' or ``binary digits'' means the
smallest unit of information in which form data is
transported on the Internet as a single digit number in base-
2.
(3) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal
Communications Commission.
(4) Communications.--The term ``communications''--
(A) means any voice, video, or data application or service,
regardless of the facilities or technology used, that--
(i) is a transmission to subscribers by use of--
(I) the public rights-of-way;
(II) spectrum;
(III) numbering or addressing resources; or
(IV) other inputs licensed or managed by a unit of local
government, or a private entity working in concert with such
unit of local government, for the benefit of the public;
(ii) is offered to the public, or as to such classes of
subscribers as to be effectively available directly to the
public, with or without a fee; and
(iii) enables an end user, as part of such service, to
transmit content of their own design or choosing between or
among points specified by such user;
(B) includes interactive on-demand services, as such term
is defined in section 602(12) of the Communications Act of
1934 (47 U.S.C. 522(12)); and
(C) does not include cable service, as such term is defined
in section 602(6) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 522(6)).
(5) Content.--The term ``content'' means information--
(A) in the form of writing, signs, signals, pictures, and
sounds of all kinds, including stored information requested
by an end user; and
(B) that is generated based on the input or request of such
user.
(6) Person.--The term ``person'' means any natural person,
partnership, firm, association, corporation, limited
liability company, or other legal entity.
(7) Network operator.--
(A) In general.--The term ``network operator'' means any
person who owns, operates, controls, or resells and controls
any facility that provides communications directly to a
subscriber.
(B) Obligations.--Any obligation imposed on a network
operator by the provisions of this Act shall apply only to
the extent that such network operator is engaged in providing
communications.
(8) Subscriber.--The term ``subscriber'' means any person
who--
(A) is an end user of an application or service provided
through communications; and
(B) consumes or provides goods provided through such
application or service.
(9) Transmission component.--The term ``transmission
component'' means the portion of communications which enables
an end user to transmit content of their own design and
choosing between or among points specified by such user.
SEC. 4. OBLIGATIONS OF NETWORK OPERATORS.
(a) In General.--A network operator shall--
(1) not interfere with, block, degrade, alter, modify,
impair, or change any bits, content, application or service
transmitted over the network of such operator;
(2) not discriminate in favor of itself or any other
person, including any affiliate or company with which such
operator has a business relationship in--
(A) allocating bandwidth; and
(B) transmitting content or applications or services to or
from a subscriber in the provision of a communications;
(3) not assess a charge to any application or service
provider not on the network of such operator for the delivery
of traffic to any subscriber to the network of such operator;
(4) offer communications such that a subscriber can access,
and a content provider can offer, unaffiliated content or
applications or services in the same manner that content of
the network operator is accessed and offered, without
interference or surcharges;
(5) allow the attachment of any device, if such device is
in compliance with part 68 of title 47, Code of Federal
Regulations, without restricting any application or service
that may be offered or provided using such a device;
(6) treat all data traveling over or on communications in a
non-discriminatory way;
(7) offer just, reasonable, and non-discriminatory rates,
terms, and conditions on the offering or provision of any
service by another person using the transmission component of
communications;
(8) provide non-discriminatory access and service to each
subscriber; and
(9) post and make available for public inspection, in
electronic form and in a manner that is transparent and
easily understandable, all rates, terms, and conditions for
the provision of any communications.
[[Page S1653]]
(b) Preserved Authority of Network Operators.--
Notwithstanding the requirements described in subsection (a),
a network operator--
(1) may--
(A) take reasonable and non-discriminatory measures to
protect subscribers from adware, spyware, malware, viruses,
spam, pornography, content deemed inappropriate for minors,
or any other similarly nefarious application or service that
harms the Internet experience of subscribers, if such
subscribers--
(i) are informed of the application or service; and
(ii) are given the opportunity to refuse or disable any
such preventative application or service;
(B) support an application or service intended to prevent
adware, spyware, malware, viruses, spam, pornography, content
deemed inappropriate for minors, or any other similarly
nefarious application or service that harms the Internet
experience of subscribers, if such subscribers--
(i) are informed of the application or service; and
(ii) are given the opportunity to refuse or disable any
such preventative application or service; and
(C) take reasonable and non-discriminatory measures to
protect the security of the network of such operator, if such
operator faces serious and irreparable harm; and
(2) shall--
(A) give priority to an emergency communication;
(B) comply with any court-ordered law enforcement
directive; and
(C) prevent any activity that is unlawful or illegal under
any Federal, State, or local law.
SEC. 5. COMPLAINTS REGARDING VIOLATIONS.
(a) Complaint.--Any aggrieved party may submit a written
complaint to the Commission seeking a ruling that a network
operator has violated a requirement described in section
4(a).
(b) Content of Complaint.--In any complaint submitted under
subsection (a) an aggrieved party shall make a prima facie
case that--
(1) a network operator violated a requirement of section
4(a);
(2) such violation was not a preserved authority described
in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 4(b)(1); and
(3) such violation is harmful to such party.
(c) 7-Day Acceptance Period.--Not later than 7 days after
the date of the submission of a complaint under subsection
(a), the Commission shall issue a decision regarding its
acceptance or denial of the prima facie case made by an
aggrieved party.
(d) Cease and Desist.--
(1) In general.--If the Commission accepts the prima facie
case of an aggrieved party under subsection (c), a network
operator shall be required to cease and desist the action
that is the underlying basis of the complaint for the
duration of the proceeding on such complaint, until such time
as the Commission may rule that a violation of a requirement
of section 4(a) has not occurred.
(2) Authority to extend cease and desist order.--The
Commission shall have the authority to extend any cease and
desist order to any similarly situated person as the
Commission determines necessary and appropriate.
(e) Burden of Proof.--If the Commission accepts the prima
facie case of an aggrieved party under subsection (c), a
network operator shall bear the burden of proving that--
(1) no violation of section 4(a) occurred; or
(2) such violation was a preserved authority described in
section 4(b).
(f) Final Decision.--
(1) 90-day period.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of the submission of a complaint under subsection (a), the
Commission shall issue a final decision regarding the request
for a ruling contained in such complaint.
(2) Failure to issue decision.--If the Commission fails to
issue a decision at the expiration of the 90-day period
described in paragraph (1), a violation of a requirement of
section 4(a) shall be deemed to have occurred.
(g) Rules of Construction.--
(1) Delegation.--
(A) In general.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed--
(i) to prevent the Commission from delegating any authority
granted to it under this section to a relevant office or
bureau pursuant to the authority granted the Commission under
section 5(c) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
155(c)); or
(ii) to limit the Commission from adopting any appropriate
procedures pursuant to any other provision of law.
(B) Limitation.--The rule established under subparagraph
(A) shall only apply if at the expiration of the 90-day
period described in subsection (f)(1)--
(i) the Commission issues a final decision that is ripe for
judicial review; or
(ii) a violation of a requirement of section 4(a) shall be
deemed to have occurred under subsection (f)(2).
(2) Petition for reconsideration.--
(A) In general.--Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect the ability of any eligible party to file a
petition for reconsideration under section 405 of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 405).
(B) Timing.--
(i) 90-day period.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of the submission of a petition for reconsideration under
section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
405), the Commission shall issue an order granting or denying
such petition.
(ii) Failure to issue an order.--If the Commission fails to
issue a decision at the expiration of the 90-day period
described in clause (i), the previous decision of the
Commission shall be considered affirmed and final for
purposes of judicial review.
(3) Judicial review.--Notwithstanding section 402(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 402(b)) and any other
provision of law, any appeal of a decision of the Commission
under this section shall be made to United States district
court for the district in which the principle place of
business of the aggrieved party is located.
(4) Intervention by third parties.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to prevent any interested person from
intervening in any appeal of a decision of the Commission in
accordance with section 402(e) of the Communications Act of
1934 (47 U.S.C. 402(e)).
SEC. 6. PENALTIES.
(a) In General.--If the Commission issues a ruling under
section 5 that a network operator is in violation of a
requirement of section 4(a), such network operator shall be
subject to the penalties prescribed under section 501 of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 501).
(b) Separate Violations.--Each violation of a requirement
of section 4(a) shall be treated as a separate incident for
purposes of imposing penalties under subsection (a).
______
By Mr. BYRD:
S. 2362. A bill to establish the National Commission on Surveillance
Activities and the Rights of Americans; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, before the Presidents Day recess, I spoke
about recent egregious examples of domestic surveillance by the
executive branch, and I announced my intention to introduce legislation
to establish a commission to investigate the instances of warrantless
wiretapping and spying on U.S. citizens by the National Security Agency
and other departments of Government.
I am not the lone voice raising questions about the legality of this
program and its effect on the rights of law-abiding American citizens.
I am only one--only one--in a growing chorus--a growing chorus--of
concerned individuals. Since the New York Times broke the story of the
NSA's wiretapping program, many in this Chamber on both sides of the
aisle have questioned the legality of the warrantless wiretapping and
have called for investigations into possible violations of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act, as well as other transgressions against
the spirit or the letter of our revered Constitution.
Many of our country's foremost constitutional scholars and professors
of law have expressed their categorical opposition to the NSA's
program, citing possible violations of both the Constitution and the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They agree that ``the program
appears on its face''--on its face--``to violate existing law.''
These concerns have, of course, been dismissed by the same branch of
Government that hatched the domestic spying program. Did you hear that?
I will say it again. These concerns have been dismissed by the same
branch of Government that hatched the domestic spying program. But this
stonewalling--yes, that is stonewalling--this stonewalling is only part
of the story. Important questions about NSA's program have been
answered with strained and tenuous justifications or claims of the dire
need for secrecy and, as a result, Congress's access to information has
been severely--severely, severely--curtailed, by whom? By whom? Guess
what, by the administration; by the administration.
There are some things we do know. We know that top officials in the
Department of Justice who were concerned about questions of legality
and lack of oversight of the program refused to endorse continued use
of the NSA's wiretapping. That isn't all. We also know because of these
concerns this secret program was suspended. Do you get that? This
secret program was suspended temporarily due to questions about its
legality.
What most Americans don't know is that FBI agents complained about
the utility of the wiretapping program. Voluminous amounts of
information and records that were gleaned from this secret
eavesdropping program were sent from the National Security Agency to
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and FBI officials repeatedly
complained that they were being drowned by a river of useless
information that
[[Page S1654]]
diverted their resources from pursuing important counterterrorism work.
Such complaints raise the question of whether the domestic wiretapping
program may have backfired by sending our top counterterrorism agencies
on wild-goose chases, thus making our country less secure instead of
making our country more secure.
We know that one member of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court, Judge James Robertson, resigned--yes, resigned--4 days after the
New York Times first detailed the NSA's warrantless--warrantless--
domestic surveillance. We know that only the chief judge of the FISA
Court, the secret court charged with approving requests to conduct
domestic surveillance, had any knowledge of this clandestine
wiretapping program. The other judges, who are sworn to strict secrecy,
learned of the program just as many of our citizens did--through
reports in the press. Yes, thank God for a free press.
We know that although most of the judges of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court were kept in the dark about the program, at least
one of the judges was tipped off by an attorney within the Department
of Justice that some of the information being presented to the court to
secure warrants was improperly obtained, meaning the Government had
apparently circumvented a court-ordered screening process to eliminate
tainted evidence.
We know that in a February 28 letter to Senate Judiciary Committee
Chairman Arlen Specter, Attorney General Gonzales admitted that the
Justice Department's legal justification for the wiretaps has ``evolved
over time.''
What does that mean? Does it mean that there actually was no legal
basis for the NSA to spy on American citizens when it first began the
surveillance? Does it mean the Department had to gin up some legal
basis for the spying once the program became public? Does it mean the
administration's reliance on the use-of-force resolution to justify its
snooping was simply a ploy--just a ploy--an ``after the fact'' face-
saving device meant to give the administration cover for having
violated the civil liberties of Americans?
We know that earlier this week, 18 Members of the House of
Representatives sent a letter to President Bush requesting that he
appoint a special counsel to investigate the NSA's warrantless
surveillance of our citizens. In their letter, the House Members noted
that with no clear information coming from the administration, they and
all of America have been forced to rely primarily on press reports to
determine the scope of the NSA's activities.
With so many questions unanswered by the administration, it is
absolutely imperative that there be an objective investigation of this
program and any violations of law that may have occurred.
We are in a supercharged political year--we know that, you know that,
everybody knows that--an election year for one-third of the Senate,
including this Senator from West Virginia, and for the entire House of
Representatives. And the Senate Intelligence Committee as of today has
refused to initiate a serious investigation into this matter. But an
investigation has to go forward. The efficacy of our laws and our
Constitution is at stake. That is why I am proposing legislation to
establish a nonpartisan commission to review and investigate domestic
surveillance in America, along with serious allegations of abuse. In
this way, we will be sure to safeguard our first and fourth amendment
rights as enumerated in this Constitution, as well as evaluate the
actual effectiveness of such programs in combating terrorist threats.
James Madison wrote in his essay, ``Political Reflections,'' that
``[t]he fetters''--the fetters, f-e-t-t-e-r-s--``[t]he fetters imposed
on liberty at home have ever been forged out of the weapons provided
for defense against real, pretended, or imaginary dangers from abroad.
No one is suggesting that the threat of terrorist attacks is anything
but a real threat, and one that must be of the Congress's utmost
priority. But the suggestion that the American people would be safer in
their homes if they just forego their constitutionally protected rights
is a deliberately deceptive assertion that may forge the fetters that
bind law-abiding citizens. Make no mistake about it: It is these ill-
conceived strictures that may ultimately destroy precious liberties.
In fact, it is because our forefathers were fearful of re-creating
the same tyrannous form of government from which many of them had fled,
that the Bill of Rights--the Bill of Rights, those first 10
amendments--the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to better
secure for all time--all time--the freedom from oppression that ever
looms from an overly powerful executive. Get that. Get that. Let me say
that again. It was because our forefathers, thank God, were fearful of
re-creating the same tyrannous, the same tyrannical form of government
from which many of them had fled that the Bill of Rights was added to
the Constitution to better secure, for all time, the freedom from
oppression that ever looms from an overly powerful executive. And you
better believe it. You better believe it. Hear me. Hear me now. I will
always speak out against an all-powerful executive, under either party.
In a climate of fear, liberties have been sacrificed time and again
under the guise of keeping the Nation from harm. Fear. Yes, fear is a
powerful tool for manipulation; useful for easing the American people
out of their liberties and into submission. Fear. When the public is
confronted with a situation, real or imagined, that inspires fear, the
public rightfully look to their leaders--look to their leaders, Mr.
President--for protection from foreboding consequences. The claim of
wartime necessity always strengthens the hands of a President. Let me
say that again. The claim of wartime necessity always strengthens a
President, any President, Republican or Democrat. And often facts are
sealed from the prying eyes of Congress by a purported need for
secrecy.
But Senators, and that includes this Senator from West Virginia,
Senators have a sworn duty--a sworn duty, a sworn duty--sworn right up
there at that desk with their hand on the Bible--the holy Bible, the
holy Bible, the holy Bible--with their hand on the Bible to check
executive power. We have to be on guard every moment of every day. The
executive branch, whether it be Democratic or Republican, is always
reaching--always reaching, always reaching--always grabbing more power,
more power, more power, and we have to be on guard. We have a sworn
duty to check executive power and, as long as I live, I am going to
stand for the checking of the executive power; I don't care whether it
is a Democrat or Republican in the White House or an Independent. It
makes no difference. We have a sworn duty. We swear. We put our hand on
the Bible before God and man, and we swear to check executive power at
all times--at all times--in times of crisis or otherwise. Each of us
here, and there are 100 here, and each of this 100, 100 Senators, we
are each bound to defend the Constitution and each bound to defend the
liberties that the Constitution gives to all Americans, at all times,
in times of peace and in times of war.
History has shown us many times that a climate of fear can take a
hefty toll on our freedoms. That is your freedoms. That is your
freedoms. That is your freedoms. Worse still are liberties surrendered
in vain, resulting in little added security.
There is no doubt that constitutional freedoms will never be
abolished in one fell swoop--never--for the American people cherish
their freedoms, and they would not tolerate such a loss if they could
perceive it; if they could see it coming, if they could hear it, if
they could feel it, if they could perceive it. But the erosion of
freedom rarely comes as an all-out frontal assault; rather, it is
gradual, noxious, creeping, cloaked in secrecy and glossed over by
reassurances of greater security.
The American people are a people born of sacrifice, and the
sacrifices that the American people are willing to endure speak well of
the tenacity and the strength that makes the United States of America
what it is. Some may be tempted to accept on blind faith the
administration's--any administration's, any administration's--promise
of increased security, and they may see it as a duty to capitulate
their rights for that flimsy promise. May we all pause to reflect on
the hard-won liberties--the hard-won liberties--for which earlier
generations fought and
[[Page S1655]]
died. Remember Nathan Hale. He died. He regretted that he had but one
life to give, to lose, one life to lose for his country. Remember
Patrick Henry: ``Give me liberty or give me death,'' he said. John Paul
Jones: ``We have only begun to fight.''
So may we all pause to reflect, as we have just done, on the hard-won
liberties for which earlier generations fought and died before we
easily accept convincing rhetoric. Rhetoric is cheap. Talk is cheap. To
suggest that innocent Americans surrender rights to preserve freedom is
a false choice. It is also a slippery slope, one that is fraught with
ever more secrecy and the certainty of egregious abuses of our Bill of
Rights and of our laws over time.
The commission that I propose would determine how to best protect the
homeland, as well as the most effective ways of gathering needed
intelligence. It will examine the procedures for the NSA's use and
retention of intelligence obtained without warrants, and the method and
scope of dissemination of such information to other agencies. It will
investigate any questions raised by the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court concerning the legality of the domestic spying
program. It will examine the obligation of the President--do you get
that? Do you hear that, Mr. President? Republican or Democrat. It will
examine the obligation of the President to brief Members of Congress--
not just one or two or three or four--on warrantless surveillance of
American citizens. It will lift the fog--lift the fog--of secrecy and
clandestine government activity misaimed at law-abiding citizens and
perhaps, most importantly, it will shed much needed sunshine--let the
sunshine in--much needed sunshine on any unlawful or unconstitutional
executive--executive, executive intrusions into the lives of ordinary
Americans.
______
By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Harkin, Mr.
Lautenberg, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Lieberman, Mrs. Clinton, Mr.
Menendez, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Kerry):
S. 2364. A bill to provide lasting protection for inventoried
roadless areas within the National Forest System; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise along with Senators Bingaman,
Harkin, Lautenberg, Boxer, Lieberman, Clinton, Menendez, Akaka, Dodd
and Kerry to introduce the Roadless Conservation Act of 2006.
Since Teddy Roosevelt established the national forest system 100
years ago, we have cherished these amazing public lands. They have
provided both timber for our economy, and quiet solace for our souls.
However, only a fraction of the vast natural forests that once covered
our nation remain. I believe it is our duty to protect these lands
before we have no natural forest legacy to pass on to our children.
Simply put, the Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2006 represents a
balanced and reasoned approach to forest management on untouched public
lands. This legislation reasserts safeguards in place in 2001 to
protect our nation's the last remaining pristine forest lands, 58.5
million acres, from logging, road-building, and other environmentally
damaging development. In Washington State alone there are 2,015,000
acres of National Forest system lands that qualify for protection as
Roadless areas under the legislation.
The bill would prohibit new road construction or reconstruction in
inventoried roadless areas while maintaining opportunities for hunting,
fishing, hiking, mountain-biking, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing
and other forms of outdoor recreation in our National Forests.
The legislation also includes a number of important exemptions to
allow new road construction for human health and safety, oil and gas
development, and other previously approved economic activities, such as
ski trails.
What is more, it allows for hazardous fuels reduction, forest
stewardship projects, and targeted economic activities. This
legislation also helps address the serious fiscal challenge presented
by the more than $8.6 billion dollar maintenance and reconstruction
backlog on the 386,000 miles of existing U.S. Forest Service roads.
Of course, this might not sound new. And you'd be right. In many
ways, we've travelled these roads before. The Clinton Administration
finalized the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in January 2001,
following three years of official review and public participation, over
600 public meetings--45 public meetings in Washington state alone--and
hearings on each National Forest and in each Forest Service region.
During his confirmation hearing I asked Attorney General John
Ashcroft if the administration would uphold the Roadless regulation. He
pledged that he would. In May 2001, then-USDA Secretary Ann Venemen
also pledged that the administration would stand by the Rule.
But that's not what happened. Through a series of subtle yet
unmistakable steps the administration has allowed these protections to
be undermined steadily. They've rolled over for logging companies and
developers. They've cooked up loopholes for State-based petitions or
settlements that could weaken or eliminate the protections afforded to
these unique lands. And finally, in May of 2005, they dropped the
pretense altogether when the U.S.D.A. Forest Service repealed the 2001
Roadless Area Conservation Rule, eliminating these vital roadless
forest land protections.
The need for action today is more urgent than ever. These are
national forest lands that provide unmatched outdoor recreation
opportunities, critical fish and wildlife habitats, and promote clean
drinking water for millions of Americans. This bill would not apply or
effect state, tribal, county, municipal, or private lands and does not
impact existing U.S. Forest Service roads, trails, or activities on
those roads and trails.
The 2001 Roadless Rule has received unprecedented public support,
including over four million comments submitted to the U.S. Forest
Service asking that it not be overturned. Most recently, over 250,000
Americans, including over 100 current and former Olympic athletes, have
filed a formal petition under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)
to reverse the Bush Administration's decision to eliminate the 2001
Rule. This legislation enjoys the support and endorsement of such
groups as National Wildlife Federation, Trout Unlimited, the Heritage
Forests Campaign, the Wilderness Society, and the Sierra Club.
I've worked to protect these pristine forest lands since the day I
came into office, and I'll keep fighting to make sure this bill gets
signed into law. We've heard it loud and clear: Americans don't want to
see their hunting, fishing, and hiking areas turned into a reckless
patchwork of road-building, logging, and mining.
Let's act today and pass the Roadless Conservation Act of 2006. The
American people and future Americans deserve nothing less.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2364
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 ``Roadless Area Conservation
Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) In General.--Congress finds that--
(1) there is a compelling need to establish national
protection for inventoried roadless areas of the National
Forest System in order to protect the unique social and
ecological values of those irreplaceable resources;
(2) roadless areas protect healthy watersheds and their
numerous benefits including--
(A) protecting downstream communities from floods and
tempering the effects of drought;
(B) ensuring a supply of clean water for domestic,
agricultural, and industrial uses;
(C) helping maintain abundant and healthy fish and wildlife
populations and habitats;
(D) providing the setting for many forms of outdoor
recreation; and
(E) providing drinking water to millions of citizens from
the more than 354 municipal watersheds found on roadless
areas;
(3) maintaining roadless areas in a relatively undisturbed
condition--
(A) saves downstream communities millions of dollars in
water filtration costs; and
(B) is crucial to preserve the flow of affordable, clean
water to a growing population;
(4) the protection of roadless areas can maintain
biological strongholds and refuges for many imperiled species
by halting the
[[Page S1656]]
ongoing fragmentation of the landscape into smaller and
smaller parcels of land divided by road corridors;
(5) roadless areas conserve native biodiversity by serving
as a bulwark against the spread of nonnative invasive
species;
(6) roadless areas provide unparalleled opportunities for
hiking, camping, picnicking, wildlife viewing, hunting,
fishing, cross-country skiing, canoeing, mountain-biking, and
similar activities;
(7) while roadless areas may have many wilderness-like
attributes, unlike wilderness areas, the use of mechanized
means of travel is allowed in many roadless areas;
(8) roadless areas contain many sites sacred to Native
Americans and other groups that use roadless areas for
spiritual and religious retreats;
(9) from the inception of Federal land management, it has
been the mission of the Forest Service and other agencies to
manage the National Forest System for the dual purposes of
resource extraction and conservation;
(10) consistent with that dual mission, this Act--
(A) protects social and ecological values, while allowing
for many multiple uses of inventoried roadless areas; and
(B) does not impose any limitations on the use of, or
access to Nation Forest System, State, or private land
outside inventoried roadless areas;
(11) establishing a consistent national policy for the
protection of inventoried roadless areas--
(A) ensures that the considerable long-term ecological and
economic benefits of protecting roadless areas for future
generations are properly considered;
(B) diminishes the likelihood of controversy at the project
level; and
(C) enables the Chief of the Forest Service to focus on the
economic and environmental benefits of reducing hazardous
fuel buildups in portions of the landscape that already have
roads;
(12) the National Fire Plan indicates that fires are almost
twice as likely to occur in roaded areas as in roadless
areas, because roadless areas are generally located further
away from communities and are harder to access;
(13) the report entitled ``Protecting People and Sustaining
Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems--A Cohesive Strategy''
(65 Fed. Reg. 67480) advocates a higher priority for fuel
reduction on land that is near communities and readily
accessible municipal watersheds;
(14) the Forest Service has an enormous backlog of
maintenance needs for the existing 386,000 mile road system
of the Forest Service that will cost millions of dollars to
eliminate;
(15) no State or private land owner would continue to build
new roads in the face of such an enormous backlog;
(16) failure to maintain forest roads--
(A) limits public access; and
(B) causes degradation of water quality and wildlife and
fish habitat; and
(17) protection of roadless areas--
(A) will impact less than 0.5 percent of the national
timber supply; and
(B) will have a negligible impact on oil and gas production
because--
(i) the entire National Forest System provides only
approximately 0.4 percent of the quantity of oil and gas that
is produced in the United States; and
(ii) roadless areas provide only a fraction of the quantity
of oil and gas that is produced in the National Forest
System.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to provide, within
the context of multiple-use management, lasting protection
for inventoried roadless areas within the National Forest
System.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Classified road.--
(A) In general.--The term ``classified road'' means a road
wholly or partially within, or adjacent to, National Forest
System land that is determined to be needed for long-term
motor vehicle access.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``classified road'' includes a
State road, county road, privately-owned road, National
Forest System road, and any other road authorized by the
Forest Service.
(2) Inventoried roadless area.--The term ``inventoried
roadless area'' means 1 of the areas identified in the set of
inventoried roadless area maps contained in the document
entitled ``Forest Service Roadless Areas Conservation, Final
Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2'', dated November
2000.
(3) Responsible official.--The term ``responsible
official'' means a Forest Service line officer or employee
with the authority and responsibility to make decisions
regarding the protection and management of inventoried
roadless areas under this Act.
(4) Road.--The term ``road'' means a motor vehicle
travelway over 50 inches wide, unless designated and managed
as a trail.
(5) Road construction.--The term ``road construction''
means activity that results in the addition of classified
road or temporary road miles.
(6) Road improvement.--The term ``road improvement'' means
activity that results in--
(A) an increase of the traffic service level of an existing
road;
(B) an expansion of the capacity of the road; or
(C) a change in the original design function of the road.
(7) Roadless area characteristics.--The term ``roadless
area characteristics'' means resources or features that are
often present in and characterize inventoried roadless areas,
including--
(A) high quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air;
(B) sources of public drinking water;
(C) diversity of plant and animal communities;
(D) habitat for--
(i) threatened, endangered, candidate, or sensitive
species, and species proposed for listing, under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and
(ii) species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land;
(E) primitive, semiprimitive nonmotorized, and
semiprimitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation;
(F) reference landscapes;
(G) natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality;
(H) traditional cultural properties and sacred sites; and
(I) other locally identified unique characteristics.
(8) Road maintenance.--The term ``road maintenance'' means
ongoing upkeep of a road necessary to retain or restore the
road in accordance with approved road management objectives.
(9) Road realignment.--The term ``road realignment'' means
an activity that results in--
(A) a new location of all or part of an existing road; and
(B) treatment of the old roadway.
(10) Road reconstruction.--The term ``road reconstruction''
means an activity that results in improvement or realignment
of an existing classified road.
(11) Temporary road.--The term ``temporary road'' means a
road that is--
(A) authorized by contract, permit, lease, other written
authorization, or emergency operation; and
(B) not intended to be part of the forest transportation
system and not necessary for long-term resource management.
(12) Unclassified road.--The term ``unclassified road''
means a road on National Forest System land that is not
managed as part of the forest transportation system,
including--
(A) an unplanned road, abandoned travelway, or off-road
vehicle track that has not been designated and managed as a
trail; and
(B) a road that was once under permit or other
authorization and was not decommissioned on the termination
of the authorization.
SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND ROAD
RECONSTRUCTION IN INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREAS.
(a) Prohibition.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
road construction and road reconstruction may not take place
in an inventoried roadless area of the National Forest
System.
(b) Exceptions.--Road construction and road reconstruction
may take place, including through the use of appropriated
funds, in an inventoried roadless area of the National Forest
System if the responsible official determines that--
(1) a road is needed to protect public health and safety in
a case of an imminent threat of flood, fire, or other
catastrophic event that, without intervention, would cause
the loss of life or property;
(2) a road is needed to conduct--
(A) a response action under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C.
9601 et seq.); or
(B) a natural resource restoration action under--
(i) that Act;
(ii) section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1321); or
(iii) the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701 et
seq.);
(3) a road is needed pursuant to a reserved or outstanding
right, or as provided for by law or treaty;
(4) a road realignment is needed--
(A) to prevent irreparable resource damage that arises from
the design, location, use, or deterioration of a classified
road that cannot be mitigated by road maintenance; and
(B) to provide for essential public or private access,
natural resource management, or public health or safety;
(5) road reconstruction is needed to implement a road
safety improvement project on a classified road determined to
be hazardous on the basis of accident experience or accident
potential with respect to the road;
(6)(A) a Federal-aid highway project authorized under
chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, is--
(i) in the public interest; or
(ii) consistent with the purposes for which the land was
reserved or acquired; and
(B) no other reasonable and prudent alternative to the
project exists; or
(7)(A) a road is needed in conjunction with--
(i) the continuation, extension, or renewal of a mineral
lease on land that is under lease by the Secretary of the
Interior as of January 12, 2001; or
(ii) the issuance of a new lease issued immediately on the
date of expiration of an existing lease described in clause
(i);
(B) road construction or road reconstruction under this
paragraph will be conducted in a manner that--
[[Page S1657]]
(i) minimizes the effects on surface resources;
(ii) prevents unnecessary or unreasonable surface
disturbance; and
(iii) complies with all applicable laws (including
regulations), lease requirements, and land and resource
management plan directives; and
(C) a road constructed or reconstructed under this
paragraph will be removed on the earlier of--
(i) the date on which the road is no longer needed for the
purposes of the lease; or
(ii) the date of termination or expiration of the lease.
(c) Road Maintenance.--A classified road in an inventoried
roadless area may be maintained.
SEC. 5. PROHIBITION ON TIMBER CUTTING, SALE, OR REMOVAL IN
INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREAS.
(a) Prohibition.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
timber may not be cut, sold, or removed in an inventoried
roadless area of the National Forest System.
(b) Exceptions.--Timber may be cut, sold, or removed in an
inventoried roadless area if the responsible official
determines that the cutting, sale, or removal of the timber
is expected to be infrequent and--
(1) the cutting, sale, or removal of generally small
diameter timber--
(A) will improve or maintain 1 or more roadless area
characteristics; and
(B) is needed--
(i) to improve habitat for threatened, endangered,
candidate, or sensitive species, and species proposed for
listing, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.); or
(ii) to maintain or restore the characteristics of
ecosystem composition and structure, such as to reduce the
risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects, within the range
of variability that would be expected to occur under a
natural disturbance regime of the current climatic period;
(2) the cutting, sale, or removal of timber is incidental
to the implementation of a management activity not otherwise
prohibited by this Act;
(3) the cutting, sale, or removal of timber is needed and
appropriate for personal or administrative use, in accordance
with part 223 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations; or
(4) roadless characteristics have been substantially
altered in a portion of an inventoried roadless area as a
result of the construction of a classified road and
subsequent timber harvest, if--
(A) the road construction and subsequent timber harvest
occurred after the area was designated an inventoried
roadless area and before January 12, 2001; and
(B) timber is cut, sold, or removed only in the
substantially altered portion of the inventoried roadless
area.
SEC. 6. SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY.
(a) Effect.--This Act does not--
(1) revoke, suspend, or modify any permit, contract, or
other legal instrument authorizing the occupancy and use of
National Forest System land issued or entered into before
January 12, 2001;
(2) compel the amendment or revision of any land and
resource management plan;
(3) revoke, suspend, or modify any decision concerning any
project or activity made before January 12, 2001; or
(4) apply to road construction, reconstruction, or the
cutting, sale, or removal of timber in an inventoried
roadless area of the Tongass National Forest if a notice of
availability of a draft environmental impact statement for
such activity has been published in the Federal Register
before January 12, 2001.
(b) Limitation on Revision.--The prohibitions and
restrictions established in this Act are not subject to
reconsideration, revision, or rescission in any subsequent
project decision or amendment or revision to any land and
resource management plan carried out in accordance with
section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources
Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604).
____________________