Congressional Record, Volume 152 Issue 43 (Thursday, April 6, 2006)

[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 43 (Thursday, April 6, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3213-S3249]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Kohl, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Leahy,
Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Durbin):
S. 2557. A bill to improve competition in the oil and gas industry,
to strengthen antitrust enforcement with regard to industry mergers,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I am sending to the desk today
legislation captioned as the ``Oil and Gas Industry Antitrust Act of
2006,'' legislation on behalf of myself and Senator DeWine, Senator
Kohl, Senator Leahy, Senator Feinstein and Senator Durbin. The
Judiciary Committee has held hearings on the escalating price of
gasoline, which has risen some 25 percent in the past year, from $1.85
per gallon nationally in January of 2005 to $2.38 a gallon early this
year.
We have seen rapid consolidation in the oil and gas industry, with
many mergers which are specified in the written statement I will have
included in the Record and enormous profits characterized by the
profits reported by ExxonMobil, which earned over $36 billion in 2005,
the largest corporate profit in U.S. history.
The legislation we are introducing will do a number of things. First,
it will eliminate the judge-made doctrines that prevent OPEC's members
from being sued for violating the antitrust laws. There is no doubt
that they take joint action when deciding how much oil to sell, actions
would normally constitute unlawful price fixing.

[[Page S3214]]

This legislation would make them subject to our antitrust laws.
With fewer players in the industry, anticompetitive acts, including
the withholding of supply and information sharing, become easier. The
bill would prohibit oil and gas companies from diverting, exporting, or
refusing to sell existing supplies with the specific intention of
raising prices.
The bill also requires the FTC and the Attorney General to consider
whether future oil and gas mergers should receive closer scrutiny. It
requires the GAO to evaluate whether the divestitures required by the
antitrust agencies for past mergers were adequate to preserve
competition. There is significant evidence that the concentration in
the industry has been a contributing factor to increasing gasoline and
oil prices. There are other factors, but it is not explained simply by
the increase in the cost of crude oil. This bill takes a firm stand to
protect the American consumer from enormous increases in gasoline
prices and in oil prices--something very serious when we have
insufficient funds in LIHEAP to take care of people who are unable to
pay for the increasing costs of heating oil.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my prepared statement
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Consolidation in the Oil and Gas Industry: Raising Prices?

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce new
legislation, the Oil and Gas Industry Antitrust Act of 2005.
Average gasoline prices nationwide have risen by 25 percent
in the past year alone, from $1.85 per gallon in January 2005
to $2.38 per gallon at the beginning of this year.
Prices for heating oil, other petroleum products and
natural gas--products that are important to the lives of
American consumers--have risen to similar heights.
While Americans are paying more for the products they use
to get to work and heat their homes, the mammoth integrated
oil companies that dominate the industry have earned record
profits. ExxonMobil reported that it earned over $36 billion
in 2,005, the largest corporate profit in U.S. history.
Although rising crude oil prices are one factor influencing
gasoline prices, it is not the only factor. Increased prices
simply cannot be entirely explained by higher crude oil
prices.
In a hearing last month and another one next week, the
Judiciary Committee is I exploring a likely cause for higher
prices--the consolidation that has occurred in the industry
over the past decade, and that continues today.
Over 2,600 mergers have occurred in the U.S. petroleum
industry since the 1990s, including transactions involving
the largest oil and gas companies in the nation.
Last summer, the FTC approved Chevron's acquisition of
Unocal.
In 2002, Valero acquired Ultramar Diamond Shamrock and
Phillips merged with Conoco.
The year 2000 saw the merger of British Petroleum and ARCO.
The largest transaction occurred in 1999 when Exxon merged
with Mobil.
Other transactions included British Petroleum's acquisition
of Amoco, Marathon's joint venture with Ashland Petroleum and
another joint venture that combined the refining assets of
Shell and Texaco.
Last month the Department of Justice just approved Conoco-
Phillips' acquisition of Burlington Resources, a merger that
creates the nation's largest natural gas company and the
third largest integrated oil company.
These transactions have resulted in significantly increased
concentration in the oil and gas industry, particularly in
the downstream refining and wholesale gasoline markets.
Fewer competitors in a market conveys market power on
remaining players, and with it, the opportunity to increase
prices. As we have learned in Committee, there is some
evidence that consolidation in the industry has increased
wholesale gasoline prices.
Fewer competitors in a market also makes collusion easier.
Recent events suggest that increased concentration may be
creating a ``collusive environment'' in the industry.
A number of experts have pointed to limited refinery
capacity as a cause for price spikes in recent years. No new
refineries have been built in the U.S. for-30 years. While
some existing refineries have expanded in recent years, other
refineries have closed. From 1998 through 2004, total
refinery capacity nationwide grew by less than one percent.
Today, U.S. refineries routinely operate at over 90 percent
of capacity. Critics have alleged that tacit collusion among
industry players has restrained the growth of refinery
capacity.
ExxonMobil and British Petroleum were recently sued by the
Alaska Gasoline Port Authority for allegedly conspiring to
withhold natural gas from customers who wished to transport
the gas via pipeline to an Alaskan port. An agreement between
Exxon and British Petroleum not to sell their natural gas to
the Alaskan project would violate the antitrust laws.
The Judiciary Committee has held two hearings this year to
consider the effects of concentration in the industry. The
most recent hearing in March considered whether concentration
had resulted, in increased prices for gasoline, other
petroleum-based fuels and natural gas.
The witnesses at that hearing--two experienced and
respected antitrust lawyers, the attorney general of Iowa, an
economist from the University of California at Berkeley and
the Senior Assistant Attorney General from California--all
agreed that there were problems with market power in the
industry.
Most of these witnesses testified that there was a serious
problem with tacit coordination and information sharing in
the industry made possible by having fewer players in the oil
and gas industry. Such conduct unquestionably leads to higher
prices.
Based on the testimony the Committee heard, it is pretty
clear that increased concentration in the industry has led to
higher prices. In part, the antitrust agencies need to adjust
their enforcement posture to reflect existing conditions in
the industry, but I believe there is a need for legislation.
The Oil and Gas Industry Antitrust Act of 2006, which I am
introducing today, would require the antitrust enforcement
agencies, as well as the GAO, to take a close look at their
past merger enforcement and whether the standard for
reviewing mergers should be changed. The original draft of
this legislation would have increased the standard of review
for mergers in the industry, but we would like to give GAO
and the enforcement agencies a chance to look at how the
standard should be changed. The legislation:
Amends the Clayton Act by prohibiting oil and gas companies
from diverting, exporting or refusing to sell existing
supplies with the specific intention of raising prices or
creating a shortage.
Requires the FTC and the Attorney General to consider
whether the standard of review for mergers contained in
Section 7 of the Clayton Act needs to be modified for mergers
in the oil and gas industry to take into account the
concentration that has already occurred in this industry.
Requires the Government Accountability Office to evaluate
whether . divestitures required by the antitrust agencies in
oil and gas industry mergers have been effective in restoring
competition. Once the study is complete, the antitrust
agencies must consider whether any additional steps are
necessary to restore competition, including further
divestitures or possibly unraveling some mergers.
Requires the antitrust agencies to establish a joint
federal-state task force to examine information sharing and
other anticompetitive results of consolidation in the oil and
gas industry. Economic studies show that sharing price and
production information in a concentrated market will result
in increased prices. Oil companies frequently supply each
other with gasoline in areas where they have no source of
supply through so-called ``exchange agreements.'' Refiners
also frequently share terminals and pipelines, which
facilitates the exchange of information. These practices
alone do not violate the antitrust laws, but parallel conduct
in combination with information sharing could be enough to
establish a violation of the antitrust laws.
Eliminates the judge-made doctrines that prevent OPEC
members from being sued for violating the antitrust laws by
conspiring to fix the price of crude oil.
It is my hope that this legislation will help reverse the
trend toward less competition and higher prices. The
cosponsors of this legislation--Senator Kohl, Senator DeWine,
Senator Durbin, Senator Leahy, Senator Feinstein--deserve
enormous credit for having the courage to take on this issue
and for helping to develop this important legislation. I urge
other members that are concerned about consolidation in the
industry--and about the prices that consumers are paying to
drive to work and heat their homes--to support this important
legislation.
____

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senators Specter,
Kohl, DeWine and others on a new bill, the Oil and Gas Industry
Antitrust Act of 2006, which includes, as its centerpiece, our NOPEC
legislation, which many of us have worked together on for years.
This measure--The No Oil Producing And Exporting Cartels Act, NOPEC--
would make OPEC accountable for its anticompetitive behavior and allow
the Justice Department to crack down on illegal price manipulation by
oil cartels. It will allow the Federal Government to take legal action
against any foreign state, including members of OPEC, for price fixing
and other anticompetitive activities. The tools this bill would provide
to law enforcement agencies are necessary to immediately counter OPEC's
anticompetitive practices, and these tools would help reduce gasoline
prices now.
The Congress should pass this measure immediately instead of waiting
until the price of gasoline at the pump is $4 a gallon. OPEC has
America over a barrel, and we should fight back. If OPEC were simply a
foreign business engaged in this type of behavior, it

[[Page S3215]]

would already be subject to American antitrust law. It is wrong to let
OPEC producers off the hook just because their anticompetitive
practices come with the seal of approval of this cartel's member
nations.
It is time for the President to join the bipartisan majority in the
Senate which already said ``NO'' to OPEC by passing NOPEC and by
sending it to the other body, where it was killed.
The Senate has already passed this bill, which would make OPEC
subject to our antitrust laws. In fact, the Judiciary Committee has
approved the NOPEC bill three times. Regrettably, even though President
Bush promised in 2000 that he would ``jawbone OPEC,'' the Bush
administration and its friends in the House have scuttled the NOPEC
bill and the direct and daily relief it would bring to millions of
Americans.
In addition, this bill makes it unlawful to divert petroleum or
natural gas products from their local market to a distant market with
the primary intention of increasing prices or creating a shortage in a
market. This solves a real problem where products are being shipped for
sale in that market but are later diverted and sold for less in another
market.
We have an obligation to address these and other issues caused by oil
cartels and by greedy companies who have money--that they have
extracted from the American people--to burn. That is why I am also
pleased that the bill includes provisions to conduct several studies
that address serious competition, information sharing, and other
antitrust problem areas related to the oil and natural gas industries.
The American people deserve answers, and this bill also provides a path
to getting those answers.
Authorizing tough legal action against illegal oil price fixing, and
taking that action without delay, is one thing we can do without
additional obstruction or delay.
The artificial pricing scheme enforced by OPEC affects all of us, not
the least of whom are hardworking Vermont farmers. The overall increase
in fuel costs for an average Vermont farmer last year was 43 percent,
meaning that each farmer is estimated to pay an additional $700 in fuel
surcharges in 2006 alone. Vermonters know what the terrible
consequences of these high prices can be: forcing many farmers to make
unfair choices between running their farms or heating their homes. No
one should be forced to make these choices, certainly not our hard-
working farmers.
In summary, this bill will provide law enforcement with the tools
necessary to fight OPEC's anticompetitive practices immediately, and
help reduce gasoline prices now. I urge my colleagues to support this
bill, and to say ``NO'' to OPEC as we have done in the past.
____

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Specter to
introduce the Oil and Gas Industry Antitrust Act of 2006. This
legislation will make several important and overdue reforms to our
antitrust laws to give our Federal Government more of the tools it
needs to take action to combat anti-competitive conduct in the oil and
gas industry. It will also direct that our antitrust enforcement
agencies undertake several actions to ensure that they are enforcing
our current antitrust laws properly.
We have all seen the suffering felt by consumers and our national
economy resulting from rising energy prices. Gasoline prices are once
again on the rise, with the national average price increasing more than
thirty cents in the last month alone. Many industry experts fear, if
current trends continue, that last summer's record levels of more than
three dollars per gallon will be exceeded this coming summer. And
prices for other crucial energy products--such as natural gas and home
heating oil--have undergone similar sharp increases. These price
increases are a silent tax that steals hard earned money away from
American consumers every time they visit the gas pump and every time
they raise their thermostat to keep their family warm.
There is much debate about the causes of these gas prices. The role
of increasing worldwide demand and supply limitations obviously play a
role. But our investigation in the Judiciary Committee--including two
hearings in the last several months--have made plain the facts that
make many of us suspect that oil and gas markets are not behaving in a
truly competitive fashion. The GAO has found that there were over 2600
mergers and acquisitions in the oil industry since 1990, and that these
mergers have caused the price of gasoline to increase from one to seven
cents per gallon. Despite a substantial growth in demand, no new
refineries have been opened in the United States in 25 years. Instead,
more than half have been closed, so that overall national refining
capacity declined by more than 9 percent from 1981 to 2004 while demand
for gasoline rose 37 percent. Many argue that limiting refining
capacity is actually in the oil companies' interest, as it enables them
to gain market power over supply to raise price.
And the oil industry has unquestionably enriched itself during this
period of high prices. Oil industry profits reached record high levels
last year, led by Exxon Mobil's record high profits of over $36
billion. An independent study by the consumers group Public Citizen
found that U.S. oil refiners increased their profits on each gallon of
gasoline they refined by 79 percent in the five-year period ending in
2004. While it is true that the world price of crude oil has
substantially increased, the fact that the oil companies can so easily
pass along all of these price increases to consumers of gasoline and
other refined products--and compound their profits along the way--
demonstrates to many of us that that there is a failure of competition
in our oil and gas markets.
Indeed, at our hearing last month, the chief executives of our
Nation's largest oil companies admitted they had no difficulty in
passing along crude oil price increases to consumers. Rex Tillerson of
ExxonMobil forthrightly testified that ``[t]he high price of crude oil
has been passed ultimately along to the consumer of whatever the
finished product may be . . . .'' David O'Reilly of Chevron agreed.
It also seems clear that there has been a failure of our antitrust
enforcement agencies to take action to restore competition to this
vital industry. Vigorous antitrust enforcement is essential to restore
competition to these markets, and it is now time to strengthen our
antitrust laws to ensure that they are up to the job. This bill that
Senator Specter and I are introducing today will significantly enhance
our antitrust laws to ensure that the government has the necessary
tools to take action to restore competition in this industry, and also
direct that the government examine its enforcement policy to determine
if additional changes are needed.
Our bill has five elements, each essential to strengthening antitrust
enforcement in the petroleum industry. It contains two important
changes to existing antitrust law. First, it will amend the Clayton Act
to prohibit withholding supplies of petroleum, gasoline or any other
fuel for the primary purpose of increasing prices or creating a
shortage. This provision will prevent the ability of oil producers and
refiners to limit supply to manipulate price. Second, it incorporates
our NOPEC bill--legislation I have introduced each Congress since
2000--to make the actions of the OPEC oil cartel subject to U.S.
antitrust law. This provision will, for the first time, establish
clearly and plainly that when a group of competing oil producers like
the OPEC nations act together to restrict supply or set prices, they
are violating U.S. law. This provision will authorize the Attorney
General to file suit under the antitrust laws for redress, and will
remove the protections of sovereign immunity and the act of state
doctrine from nations that participate in the oil cartel. Our NOPEC
provision passed the Senate last year as an amendment to the energy
bill, but was subsequently dropped by the House-Senate Conference
Committee without explanation. It is past time to pass this much needed
anti-cartel measure finally into law.
Our bill also will direct that the antitrust enforcement agencies
undertake several important actions to promote competition. The first
two of these measures will address the government's response to the
huge wave of consolidation in the oil industry. First, the bill will
direct that the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission conduct
a study and report their

[[Page S3216]]

findings to us in nine months, as to whether the Clayton Act needs to
be amended to ensure that mergers which truly lessen competition in the
petroleum industry are prohibited. Second, the bill directs a study by
the GAO to be completed within six months to examine whether the
consent decrees and divestitures obtained by the Justice Department or
FTC in the oil industry have been effective in protecting competition.
The Attorney General and FTC are directed to consider additional action
be required to restore competition upon completion of this report.
Finally, the bill directs that the Attorney General and FTC Chairman
establish a joint Federal-State task force to investigate information
sharing among companies producing, refining, or marketing petroleum,
gasoline or any other refined product.
As Ranking Member on the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee, I believe
that this bill is an important step to reforming our antitrust laws and
restoring competition to the oil and gas industry. All of us can agree
that anticompetitive conduct leading to higher prices for gasoline and
other energy products simply cannot be tolerated. It is essential that
we give our government the necessary tools to do the job, and I am
certain our bill is a long overdue measure to do just that.
I urge my colleagues to support the Oil and Gas Industry Antitrust
Act of 2006.
____

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am proud to join as a co-sponsor of
Senator Specter's Oil and Gas Industry Antitrust Act. This bill should
help us curb the skyrocketing energy prices that have been an
increasing burden on our Nation's consumers and businesses. It also
should help us figure out how we can address these problems in the
future.
High fuel costs are affecting every family, whether they are driving
across town or heating their homes, and we must continue our efforts to
do something about it. This bill would take immediate steps to help
decrease possible price manipulation by oil companies and allow
government enforcement agencies to take action to prevent price-fixing
by oil producing nations.
I have been working on this problem for a long time. In fact, Senator
Kohl and I have worked hard in our Subcommittee on Antitrust,
Competition Policy and Consumer Rights to encourage FTC monitoring of
gas prices and their careful investigation of oil industry behavior. I
believe that those efforts have helped limit the fuel price increases;
unfortunately, we still face enormous problems in this area, and we are
all paying higher and higher prices for gas and heating oil. So, we
need to continue our efforts and try some different approaches, and
this legislation does just that.
Specifically, this bill calls for the Government Accountability
Office to undertake a thorough study of the past enforcement actions
taken by the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice in
prior oil industry merger investigations. This study will provide much-
needed information on how effective the antitrust agencies' actions
have been in preventing harm to consumers from mergers within the
petroleum industry. Even more important, this bill also will call on
the FTC and DOJ to use the findings from that study to examine those
specific mergers and determine if they need to take further enforcement
action regarding those deals. In addition, the antitrust agencies will
utilize this information to take a close look at the petroleum industry
and to determine whether they require special antitrust rules--
applicable specifically to the oil industry--to give the agencies the
tools they need to promote competition in the oil industry. This would
be a very significant step, of course, but it is something they will
consider.
Another important provision of this legislation creates a Joint
Federal and State Task Force to investigate information sharing in the
oil industry that may lead to artificially high prices for gasoline,
electricity, and heating oil. The Federal Government and the various
States have worked very effectively in the past to look into price
spikes, supply disruptions, and a host of commercial arrangements that
can harm consumers, and this bill provides a valuable framework for
continuing and increasing this very effective cooperation.
Moreover, this bill will put an end to certain types of activities
that oil companies may use to drive up prices or create shortages for
all types of fuels. Specifically, this bill makes sure that oil
companies cannot manipulate prices by refusing to sell their products
in particular markets or diverting oil products away from American
shores to artificially create a shortage and pad their profits. I am
particularly pleased that the bill includes a provision that Senator
Kohl and I have pursued since 2000--a provision that would make it
clear that the Antitrust Division can prosecute OPEC for its price-
fixing.
I believe that some of the provisions of this bill will help right
away, like limiting the ability of the oil companies to refuse to sell
petroleum in markets that need it and putting OPEC on notice that they
can be prosecuted if they violate our laws. These provisions should
help in the short-term. And, the other provisions, which require
studies and review of past enforcement actions and analysis of possible
changes in the antitrust laws, may help us address this problem in the
long-run.
This bill will make a difference and help consumers. I strongly
encourage my colleagues to join in support of its passage.
______

By Mr. LEAHY:
S. 2559. A bill to make it illegal for anyone to defraud and deprive
the American people of the right to the honest services of a Member of
Congress and to instill greater public confidence in the United States
Congress; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Honest
Services Act of 2006,''--a bill to provide new tools for Federal
prosecutors to combat public corruption in our government. The purpose
of this bill is to strengthen the tools available to Federal
prosecutors to combat public corruption. This bill articulates more
clearly for lobbyists, members of Congress, and Congressional staff the
line that cannot be crossed regarding links between gifts or special
favors and official acts, without incurring criminal liability.
Just recently, the Senate passed the Legislative Transparency and
Accountability Act of 2006, S. 2349--the first lobbying reform bill in
Congress in over a decade. I voted for the lobbying reform bill and I
believe that this legislation takes an important step toward restoring
the public's confidence in Congress.
I was disappointed, however, that I did not have an opportunity to
offer the bill that I now propose as an amendment to the lobbying
reform bill because cloture was invoked very early in the floor debate.
My amendment would have offered an important and needed new dimension
to the lobbying reform bill by strengthening our criminal public
corruption laws.
Although it is certainly important to have high ethical standards
within Congress and more transparency in the lobbying process, vigorous
enforcement of our Federal public corruption laws is also an important
component of this effort to restore public confidence in government.
Indeed, it was only with the indictments of Jack Abramoff, Michael
Scanlon, and Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham that Congress took note of the
serious ethics scandals that have grown over the last years. If we are
serious about restoring public confidence in Congress, we need to do
more than just reform the lobbying disclosure laws and ethics rules.
Congress must send a signal that it will not tolerate this type of
public corruption by providing better tools Federal prosecutors to
combat it.
This bill will do exactly that. The bill creates a better legal
framework for combating public corruption than currently exists under
our criminal laws. It specifies the crime of Honest Services Fraud
Involving Members of Congress and prohibits defrauding or depriving the
American people of the honest services of their elected
representatives.
Under this bill, lobbyists who improperly seek to influence
legislation and other official matters by giving expensive gifts,
lavish entertainment and travel, and inside advice on investments to
Members of Congress and their staff would be held criminally liable for
their actions. The law also prohibits Members of Congress and their

[[Page S3217]]

staff from accepting these types of gifts and favors, or holding hidden
financial interests, in return for being influenced in carrying out
their official duties. Violators are subject to a criminal fine and up
to 20 years imprisonment, or both.

This legislation strengthens the tools available to Federal
prosecutors to combat public corruption, by removing some of the legal
hurdles to public corruption prosecutions. Under current law, Federal
prosecutors often have great difficulty bringing public corruption
cases because it is difficult to prove a specific quid pro quo under
the Federal bribery statute. In addition, the current honest services
fraud statute--18 U.S.C. 1346--requires that prosecutors must also show
that misconduct occurred via the mail or wire, even when there is clear
evidence of an improper link between gifts and an official act. My bill
makes it possible for Federal prosecutors to bring public corruption
cases without having to first overcome these hurdles.
The bill also provides lobbyists, Members of Congress, and other
individuals with much-needed notice and clarification as to what kind
of conduct triggers this criminal offense. For much of the 20th
Century, honest services fraud was a common law offense which courts
read into the federal mail and wire fraud statutes. In 1987, the
Supreme Court invalidated this common law concept in the case of
McNally v. United States. In response to the McNally case, Congress
subsequently added an honest services mail and wire fraud statute--18
U.S.C. 1346--to the Federal criminal code. Section 1346 has been
regularly relied upon by prosecutors in public corruption cases ever
since. However, that provision is often criticized for being too vague
or for failing to give public officials sufficient notice about what
type of conduct is covered by the statute. Courts have also disagreed
about exactly what this statute means. My bill will help to resolve the
confusion about honest services fraud in the legislative context, by
setting out a well-defined honest services fraud offense for violations
involving Members of Congress. In addition, the bill's intent
requirements ensure that corrupt conduct can be appropriately
prosecuted, but that innocuous actions will not be inappropriately
targeted.
Lastly, my bill authorizes $25 million in additional federal funds
over each of the next four years to give federal prosecutors needed
resources to investigate public corruption. According to the FBI's
2004-2009 Strategic Plan, reducing public corruption in our country's
Federal, State, and local governments is one of the FBI's top
investigative priorities--behind only terrorism, espionage, and cyber
crimes. However, an August 2005 report by the Department of Justice's
Inspector General, found that, since 2000, there has been an overall
reduction in the number of public corruption matters investigated by
the FBI. That report noted that, in 2004, the FBI referred 63 fewer
public corruption cases to the United States Attorney's offices across
the Nation than it referred in 2000. My bill will give the FBI and the
Public Integrity Section within the Department of Justice new resources
to hire additional public corruption investigators and public
corruption prosecutors.
If we are serious about addressing the egregious misconduct that we
have recently witnessed, Congress must enact meaningful legislation to
strengthen our public corruption laws and give investigators and
prosecutors the resources they need to enforce these laws.
The unfolding public corruption investigations involving lobbyist
Jack Abramoff and former Representative Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham
demonstrate that unethical conduct by public officials has broad
ranging impact. Just last month, the Washington Post reported that, as
an outgrowth of the Cunningham investigation, federal investigators and
the Pentagon are now looking into contracts awarded by the Pentagon's
new intelligence agency--the Counterintelligence Field Activity--to
MZM, Inc., a company run by Mitchell J. Wade, who recently pleaded
guilty to conspiring to bribe Mr. Cunningham. The Cunningham case
demonstrates that our democracy and national security depend upon a
healthy, efficient, and ethical government.
The American people expect--and deserve--to be confident that their
representatives in Congress perform their legislative duties in a
manner that is beyond reproach and that is in the public interest.
Because I strongly believe that Congress must do more to restore the
public's trust in their Congress, I urge all Senators to support this
bill.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 2559

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 ``Honest Services Act of
2006''.

SEC. 2. HONEST SERVICES FRAUD INVOLVING MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 63 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 1351. Honest services fraud involving members of
Congress

``(a) In General.--Whoever knowingly and willfully
executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice to
defraud and deprive the United States, the Congress, or the
constituents of a Member of Congress, of the right to the
honest services of a Member of Congress by--
``(1) offering and providing to a Member of Congress, or an
employee of a Member of Congress, anything of value or a
series of things of value, with the intent to influence the
performance an official act or series of official acts; or
``(2) being a Member of Congress, or an employee of a
Member of Congress, accepting anything of value or a series
of things of value or holding an undisclosed financial
interest, with the intent to be influenced in performing an
official act or series of official acts;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
20 years, or both.
``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Honest services.--The term `honest services' includes
the right to conscientious, loyal, faithful, disinterested,
and unbiased service, to be performed free of deceit, undue
influence, conflict of interest, self-enrichment, self-
dealing, concealment, bribery, fraud, and corruption.
``(2) Official act.--The term `official act'--
``(A) has the meaning given that term in section 201(a)(3)
of this title; and
``(B) includes supporting and passing legislation, placing
a statement in the Congressional Record, participating in a
meeting, conducting hearings, or advancing or advocating for
an application to obtain a contract with the United States
Government.
``(3) Undisclosed financial interest.--The term
`undisclosed financial interest' includes any financial
interest not disclosed as required by statute or by the
Standing Rules of the Senate.
``(c) No Inference and Scope.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to--
``(1) create any inference with respect to whether the
conduct described in section 1351 of this title was already a
criminal or civil offense prior to the enactment of this
section; or
``(2) limit the scope of any existing criminal or civil
offense.''.
(b) Chapter Analysis.--The chapter analysis for chapter 63
of title 18, United States Code is amended by adding at the
end, the following:

``1351. Honest services fraud involving Members of Congress.''.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO INVESTIGATE
AND PROSECUTE HONEST SERVICES FRAUD, BRIBERY,
GRAFT, AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OFFENSES.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department
of Justice, including the Public Integrity Section of the
Criminal Division, and the Federal Bureau of Investigations,
$25,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2007, 2008, 2009,
and 2010, to increase the number of personnel to investigate
and prosecute violations of section 1351 and sections 201,
203 through 209, 1001, 1341, 1343, and 1346 of title 18,
United States Code, as amended by this Act.
______

By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Grassley,
and Mr. Levin):
S. 2560. A bill to reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control
Policy; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I further introduce the reauthorization
for the Office of National Drug Control Policy Act of 2006. Senators
Hatch, Biden, and Grassley have worked with me on this issue. This is
the office to establish our drug policy. Since 2001, according to the
ONDCP--the Office of National Drug Control Policy--the combined use of
illicit drugs by 8th, 10th, and 12th graders has decreased by some 19
percent. We have seen a serious problem with methamphetamine. This
agency is very important to carry out the administration's policy to
try to reduce drug usage.

[[Page S3218]]

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my prepared statement
be printed in the Record.

Introductory Statement--``Office of National Drug Control Policy
Reauthorization Act of 2006''

Mr. President, to reiterate I seek recognition today to
introduce the ``Office of National Drug Control Policy
Reauthorization Act of 2006'' and ask for the support of my
colleagues for this important legislation concerning the war
on illegal drugs.
This bill re-authorizes the Office of National Drug Control
Policy--(``ONDCP'')--the Administration's office responsible
for establishing policy and objectives to reduce illicit drug
use, manufacturing, and trafficking, drug-related crime and
violence, and drug-related health consequences. Senators
Biden, Hatch and Grassley have worked diligently with me in
crafting this bill to provide authorization for ONDCP and its
programs, and maintain a high level of Congressional
oversight. I appreciate their consistent leadership.
Since 2001, according to ONDCP, the combined use of illicit
drugs by 8th, 10th, and 12th graders has decreased 19
percent. This amounts to roughly 700,000 students who are not
using drugs. ONDCP has prepared a National Drug Control
Strategy that seeks to build on this progress and attain the
President's goal of a 25 percent reduction in 5 years. I want
to see the President's 25 percent reduction goal become a
reality, and this bill will assist the Administration meet
this objective.
Drug use and abuse--particularly among our youth--has a
profoundly negative impact that spreads among our society
like ripples made in water. Drug use leads to increased crime
and violence, lowers educational standards, and has a
destructive impact on the family unit. We need to take
affirmative steps to provide the Executive Branch with the
tools it needs to confront the problem of drugs and the
negative consequences that follow from their abuse. This bill
seeks to do just that.
We have seen over the last few years an epidemic involving
the abuse of methamphetamine--a highly addictive drug that
has been particularly damaging to our youth. This is a drug
that can be cooked in low-tech labs with ingredients that can
be purchased at most convenience stores. As a result, we
included in the USA Patriot Act--which was recently signed
into law--provisions that: (1) restrict the sale and
distribution of chemical ingredients that make
methamphetamine; (2 ) provides critical resources to state
and local law enforcement; and (3) enhances international law
enforcement of methamphetamine trafficking. Congress
affirmatively responded to this problem and acted by passing
the Combat Meth Act. We seek to continue these efforts with
this legislation.
Once again, the President's 2007 budget seeks to shift
funding of High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA's)
from ONDCP to the Department of Justice as a separate entity
within the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force--
(OCDETF). The HIDTA program was created by Congress to exist
within ONDCP, and has successfully grown from 5 HIDTA's in
1990 to 28 HIDTA's that currently exist across the United
States. HIDTA's enhance and coordinate drug control efforts
among local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, and
provides agencies with equipment, technology, and additional
resources to combat drug trafficking and their harmful
consequences in critical regions of the United States. This
bill keeps the HIDTA program within ONDCP where Congress
intended it to remain.
I am hopeful the provisions in this bill meet the goals set
by the President and reduce the overall use and abuse of
illegal drugs in our country.
______

By Mr. DOMENICI:
S. 2561. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make
available cost-shared grants and enter into cooperative agreements to
further the goals of the Water 2025 Program by improving water
conservation, efficiency, and management in the Reclamation States, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, an excerpt from John Steinbeck's classic
The Grapes of Wrath recounting the conditions preceding the great Dust
Bowl is eerily similar to the conditions currently faced by the
Southwestern United States. ``The sky grew pale and the clouds that had
hung in high puffs for so long in the spring were dissipated. The sun
flared down on the growing corn each day until a line of brown spread
along the edge of each green bayonet. The clouds appeared, and went
away, and in a while they did not try any more. The weeds grew darker
green to protect themselves, and they did not spread any more. The
surface of the earth crusted, a thin hard crust, and as the sky became
pale, so the earth became pale, pink in the red country and white in
the gray country . . . Every moving thing lifted the dust into the air.
. . . The dust was long in settling back again.''
As of April 5, 2006, statistics provided by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) of the United States Department of
Agriculture indicate that my home State of New Mexico is facing one of
the worst droughts in the past 100 years. Historic snow pack data
indicates the 2005-2006 snow season is the worst in more than 50 years.
Several river basins in New Mexico, including the Rio Hondo and Mimbres
river basins currently have no snow pack. This fact is particularly
troubling when one considers that we rely on spring run-off for our
surface water. Moreover, lack of snow pack indicates that our
reservoirs, already depleted after years of drought, will remain at
alarmingly low levels. According to the NRCS, ``Record low snow packs
in several of the major basins have water managers scratching their
heads, wondering how best to manage the water resource, with no real
hopes of realizing any significant runoff to refill the reservoirs.''
These facts, taken together, are particularly ominous.
Unseasonably warm temperatures in New Mexico have resulted in the
start of the runoff season in early March, something that usually
starts in middle to late April. The early beginning of the run-off
season will be particularly damaging to the agriculture industry which
relies on spring run-off for irrigation during the early growing
season. The lack of precipitation will also be devastating to our
ranchers and dairymen. Because drought has hindered local production of
hay, it has to be hauled from great distances. As a result, hay is
approximately twice as expensive as usual, placing a great economic
strain on the ranching and dairy industries. I fully anticipate that
the drought will interrupt municipal water service. Although early in
the year, the Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico has contacted my office
seeking emergency Federal assistance to address looming water
shortages. In addition, numerous New Mexico communities are under
severe water restrictions.
The current drought illustrates how perilously close we are coming to
having serious and widespread water shortages and the need to make more
efficient use of the water we do have. The competing demands of
agriculture, industry, municipalities and environmental needs have
placed an enormous strain on available supplies of water. This is
particularly true with respect to our interstate rivers that are
governed by compacts. These interstate agreements require that a
certain amount of water be delivered to downstream States. Meanwhile,
enormous amounts of water are lost because of antiquated water
infrastructure. In many instances, relatively cheap water
infrastructure upgrades can minimize water losses. For example, by
lining dirt canals, large amount of water can be saved that otherwise
would have been lost to seepage. For the past 3 years, Congress has
made available efficiency and conservation grants through the
Administration's Water 2025 program. The goal of this program is to
make more water available in water-short river systems through
infrastructure conservation and efficiency upgrades. The bill I
introduce today would authorize the Water 2025 program. While not a
panacea to our water woes, I believe that this legislation will help us
maximize the water available to us during times of drought.
I would like to thank Representative Heather Wilson, our
Congresswoman from the First Congressional District of New Mexico for
introducing the House companion to this measure. She fully appreciates
the breadth of this problem and I look forward to working with her on
this critically important issue.
Ensuring adequate water supplies for the Southwestern United States
is as important a matter as any I can contemplate. As Chairman of the
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which has jurisdiction over
this legislation, I assure it will receive prompt Committee
consideration.
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. 2561

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

[[Page S3219]]

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Bureau of Reclamation Water
Conservation, Efficiency, and Management Improvement Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Non-federal entity.--The term ``non-Federal entity''
means a State, Indian tribe, irrigation district, water
district, or any other organization with water delivery
authority.
(2) Reclamation state.--The term ``Reclamation State''
means each of the States of Arizona, California, Colorado,
Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah,
Washington, and Wyoming.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of
Reclamation.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF GRANTS AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary may, in accordance with the
criteria published under subsection (b), provide grants to,
and enter into cooperative agreements with non-Federal
entities to pay the Federal share of the cost of a project to
plan, design, construct, or otherwise implement improvements
to conserve water, increase water use efficiency, facilitate
water markets, enhance water management, or implement other
actions to prevent water-related crises or conflicts in
watersheds that have a nexus to Federal water projects within
the Reclamation States.
(b) Eligibility Criteria.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall, consistent with
this Act, publish in the Federal Register criteria developed
by the Secretary for--
(A) determining the eligibility of a non-Federal entity for
assistance under subsection (a); and
(B) prioritizing requests for assistance under subsection
(a).
(2) Factors.--The criteria developed under paragraph (1)
shall take into account such factors as--
(A) the extent to which a project under subsection (a)
would reduce conflict over water;
(B) the extent to which a project under subsection (a)
would--
(i) increase water use efficiency; or
(ii) enhance water management;
(C) the extent to which unallocated water is available in
the area in which a project under subsection (a) is proposed
to be conducted;
(D) the extent to which a project under subsection (a)
involves water marketing;
(E) the likelihood that the benefit of a project under
subsection (a) would be attained;
(F) whether the non-Federal entity has demonstrated the
ability of the non-Federal entity to pay the non-Federal
share;
(G) the extent to which the assistance provided under
subsection (a) is reasonable for the work proposed under the
project;
(H) the involvement of the non-Federal entity and
stakeholders in a project under subsection (a);
(I) whether a project under subsection (a) is related to a
Bureau of Reclamation project or facility; and
(J) the extent to which a project under subsection (a)
would conserve water.
(c) Federal Facilities.--If a grant or cooperative
agreement under subsection (a) provides for improvements to a
Federal facility--
(1) the Federal funds provided under the grant or
cooperative agreement may be--
(A) provided on a nonreimbursable basis to an entity
operating affected transferred works; or
(B) determined to be nonreimbursable for non-transferred
works; and
(2) title to the improvements to the Federal facility shall
be held by the United States.
(d) Cost-Sharing Requirement.--
(1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of
carrying out a project assisted under subsection (a) shall be
not more than 50 percent.
(2) Non-federal share.--In calculating the non-Federal
share of the cost of carrying out a project under subsection
(a), the Secretary--
(A) may include any in-kind contributions that the
Secretary determines would materially contribute to the
completion of proposed project; and
(B) shall exclude any funds received from other Federal
agencies.
(e) Operation and Maintenance Costs.--The non-Federal share
of the cost of operating and maintaining improvements
assisted under subsection (a) shall be 100 percent.
(f) Mutual Benefit.--Grants or cooperative agreements made
under this section or section 4 may be for the mutual benefit
of the United States and the entity that is provided the
grant or enters into the cooperative agreement.
(g) Liability.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
United States shall not be liable under Federal or State law
for monetary damages of any kind arising out of any act,
omission, or occurrence relating to any non-Federal facility
constructed or improved under this Act.
(2) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the United
States may be held liable for damages to non-Federal
facilities caused by acts of negligence committed by the
United States or by an employee or agent of the United
States.
(3) No additional liability.--Nothing in this section
increases the liability of the United States beyond that
provided in chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code
(commonly known as the ``Federal Torts Claim Act'').

SEC. 4. RESEARCH AGREEMENTS.

The Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements with
institutions of higher education, nonprofit research
institutions, or organizations with water or power delivery
authority to fund research to conserve water, increase water
use efficiency, or enhance water management under such terms
and conditions as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.

SEC. 5. EFFECT.

Nothing in this Act--
(1) affects any existing project-specific funding
authority; or
(2) invalidates, preempts, or creates any exception to
State water law, State water rights, or any interstate
compact governing water.

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
Act $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2016.
______

By Mr. CRAIG (for himself and Mr. Akaka):
S. 2562. A bill to increase, effective as of December 1, 2006, the
rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities
and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the
survivors of certain disabled veterans; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I join Senator Akaka in introducing
legislation that would provide a cost-of-living adjustment to the rates
of disability compensation provided to our Nation's disabled veterans
and to the compensation provided to survivors of veterans and
servicemembers who died, or who will die, as a result of military
service. Every year since 1976 Congress has enacted an annual COLA
adjustment for veterans with disabilities and survivors. The regularity
of Congress's action on COLA legislation underscores its importance.
Without it, inflation would erode the purchasing power of millions of
beneficiaries.
According to its fiscal year 2007 budget, VA estimates that it will
provide disability compensation to 2,867,013 veterans with service-
connected disabilities in the upcoming fiscal year. Among the veterans
estimated to receive such compensation are 5 World War I veterans;
335,180 World War II veterans; 160,889 Korean-conflict veterans;
992,360 Vietnam-era veterans; and 762,230 veterans of the Persian Gulf
war era. The COLA legislation will also benefit an estimated 348,479
survivors.
The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates that inflation, at
the close of this fiscal year, will be at 2.2 percent as measured by
the consumer price index published by the Department of Labor's Bureau
of Labor Statistics. Once the actual inflation level is known, this
legislation would adjust payment rates in effect on November 30, 2006,
and be applied to payments made to veterans and survivors effective
December 1, 2006. CBO also estimates that the legislation will increase
direct spending by $530 million in fiscal year 2007. Again, because of
the importance accorded to annual COLA legislation, all of this
spending is assumed in the budget baseline and, thus, requires no
offset.
In summary, this legislation is critical to the lives of over 3
million beneficiaries who have served our country well and faithfully.
I ask my colleagues for their continued support for our nation's
veterans. And I ask for their support of the Veterans' Compensation
Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2006.
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. 2562

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 ``Veterans' Compensation Cost-
of-Living Adjustment Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN RATES OF DISABILITY COMPENSATION AND
DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION.

(a) Rate Adjustment.--Effective on December 1, 2006, the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall increase, in accordance
with subsection (c), the dollar amounts in effect on

[[Page S3220]]

November 30, 2006, for the payment of disability compensation
and dependency and indemnity compensation under the
provisions specified in subsection (b).
(b) Amounts to Be Increased.--The dollar amounts to be
increased pursuant to subsection (a) are the following:
(1) Wartime disability compensation.--Each of the dollar
amounts under section 1114 of title 38, United States Code.
(2) Additional compensation for dependents.--Each of the
dollar amounts under sections 1115(1) of such title.
(3) Clothing allowance.--The dollar amount under section
1162 of such title.
(4) Dependency and indemnity compensation to surviving
spouse.--Each of the dollar amounts under subsections (a)
through (d) of section 1311 of such title.
(5) Dependency and indemnity compensation to children.--
Each of the dollar amounts under sections 1313(a) and 1314 of
such title.
(c) Determination of Increase.--
(1) Percentage.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), each
dollar amount described in subsection (b) shall be increased
by the same percentage as the percentage by which benefit
amounts payable under title II of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 401 et seq.) are increased effective December 1, 2006,
as a result of a determination under section 215(i) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)).
(2) Rounding.--Each dollar amount increased under paragraph
(1), if not a whole dollar amount, shall be rounded to the
next lower whole dollar amount.
(d) Special Rule.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may
adjust administratively, consistent with the increases made
under subsection (a), the rates of disability compensation
payable to persons under section 10 of Public Law 85-857 (72
Stat. 1263) who have not received compensation under chapter
11 of title 38, United States Code.

SEC. 3. PUBLICATION OF ADJUSTED RATES.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall publish in the
Federal Register the amounts specified in section 2(b), as
increased under that section, not later than the date on
which the matters specified in section 215(i)(2)(D) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)(2)(D)) are required to
be published by reason of a determination made under section
215(i) of such Act during fiscal year 2007.
______

By Mr. COCHRAN (for himself, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Talent):
S. 2563. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
require prompt payment to pharmacies under part D, to restrict pharmacy
co-branding on prescription drug cards issued under such part, and to
provide guidelines for Medication Therapy Management Services programs
offered by prescription drug plans and MA-PD plans under such part; to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, The Medicare prescription drug plan is a
tremendous success with more than 27 million Medicare beneficiaries now
enrolled in the program. Seniors are realizing significant decreases in
the cost of their prescription drugs and the savings are even greater
than expected. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and
health care providers worked together to plan and implement this
program. In particular, community pharmacists played an important role
in making this benefit successful. Prior to the January 1 start of the
program, pharmacists assisted their Medicare patients in the selection
and enrollment process. This process was new and challenging, but
pharmacists were diligent in serving their patients and providing much-
needed medications while the program became functional.
We are introducing a bill today to assist pharmacists as they
continue to serve their patients and as they help to continue the
success of the Medicare drug benefit. This bill will allow pharmacists
to achieve efficiencies in reimbursement for the products they have
provided to new beneficiaries. This is especially needed by small,
rural independent pharmacies. This legislation will also provide
incentives for pharmacists and other providers to help beneficiaries
better utilize their medications, adhere to their drug regimens, and
utilize cost saving medication therapy management programs.
I am pleased to offer this legislation that will help continue the
success of the Medicare prescription drug benefit.
Mr. President, 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. 2563

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 ``Pharmacist Access and
Recognition in Medicare (PhARM) Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. PROMPT PAYMENT BY PRESCRIPTION DRUG PLANS AND MA-PD
PLANS UNDER PART D.

(a) Prompt Payment by Prescription Drug Plans.--Section
1860D-12(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
112(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(4) Prompt payment of clean claims.--
``(A) Prompt payment.--
``(i) In general.--Each contract entered into with a PDP
sponsor under this section with respect to a prescription
drug plan offered by such sponsor shall provide that payment
shall be issued, mailed, or otherwise transmitted with
respect to all clean claims submitted under this part within
the applicable number of calendar days after the date on
which the claim is received.
``(ii) Clean claim defined.--In this paragraph, the term
`clean claim' means a claim that has no apparent defect or
impropriety (including any lack of any required
substantiating documentation) or particular circumstance
requiring special treatment that prevents timely payment from
being made on the claim under this part.
``(B) Applicable number of calendar days defined.--In this
paragraph, the term `applicable number of calendar days'
means--
``(i) with respect to claims submitted electronically, 14
days; and
``(ii) with respect to claims submitted otherwise, 30 days.
``(C) Interest payment.--If payment is not issued, mailed,
or otherwise transmitted within the applicable number of
calendar days (as defined in subparagraph (B)) after a clean
claim is received, interest shall be paid at a rate used for
purposes of section 3902(a) of title 31, United States Code
(relating to interest penalties for failure to make prompt
payments), for the period beginning on the day after the
required payment date and ending on the date on which payment
is made.
``(D) Procedures involving claims.--
``(i) In general.--A contract entered into with a PDP
sponsor under this section with respect to a prescription
drug plan offered by such sponsor shall provide that, not
later than 10 days after the date on which a clean claim is
submitted, the PDP sponsor shall provide the claimant with a
notice that acknowledges receipt of the claim by such
sponsor. Such notice shall be considered to have been
provided on the date on which the notice is mailed or
electronically transferred.
``(ii) Claim deemed to be clean.--A claim is deemed to be a
clean claim if the PDP sponsor involved does not provide
notice to the claimant of any deficiency in the claim within
10 days of the date on which the claim is submitted.
``(iii) Claim determined to not be a clean claim.--

``(I) In general.--If a PDP sponsor determines that a
submitted claim is not a clean claim, the PDP sponsor shall,
not later than the end of the period described in clause
(ii), notify the claimant of such determination. Such
notification shall specify all defects or improprieties in
the claim and shall list all additional information or
documents necessary for the proper processing and payment of
the claim.
``(II) Determination after submission of additional
information.--A claim is deemed to be a clean claim under
this paragraph if the PDP sponsor involved does not provide
notice to the claimant of any defect or impropriety in the
claim within 10 days of the date on which additional
information is received under subclause (I).
``(III) Payment of clean portion of a claim.--A PDP sponsor
shall pay any portion of a claim that would be a clean claim
but for a defect or impropriety in a separate portion of the
claim in accordance with subparagraph (A).

``(iv) Obligation to pay.--A claim submitted to a PDP
sponsor that is not paid or contested by the provider within
the applicable number of days (as defined in subparagraph
(B)) shall be deemed to be a clean claim and shall be paid by
the PDP sponsor in accordance with subparagraph (A).
``(v) Date of payment of claim.--Payment of a clean claim
under such subparagraph is considered to have been made on
the date on which full payment is received by the provider.
``(E) Electronic transfer of funds.--A PDP sponsor shall
pay all clean claims submitted electronically by electronic
transfer of funds.''.
(b) Prompt Payment by MA-PD Plans.--Section 1857(f) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-27(f)) is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Incorporation of certain prescription drug plan
contract requirements.--The provisions of section 1860D-
12(b)(4) shall apply to contracts with a Medicare Advantage
organization in the same manner as they apply to contracts
with a PDP sponsor offering a prescription drug plan under
part D.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to contracts entered into or renewed on or after
the date that is 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act.

[[Page S3221]]

SEC. 3. RESTRICTION ON PHARMACY CO-BRANDING ON MEDICARE
PRESCRIPTION DRUG CARDS ISSUED BY PRESCRIPTION
DRUG PLANS AND MA-PD PLANS.

(a) In General.--Section 1860D-4 of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395w-104) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(2)(A), by striking ``The PDP
sponsor'' and inserting ``Subject to subsection (l), the PDP
sponsor''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(l) Co-Branding Prohibited.--A card that is issued under
subsection (b)(2)(A) for use under a prescription drug plan
offered by a PDP sponsor shall not display the name, brand,
or trademark of any pharmacy.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to cards distributed on or after the date that is
90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 4. PROVISION OF MEDICATION THERAPY MANAGEMENT SERVICES
UNDER PART D.

(a) Provision of Medication Therapy Management Services
Under Part D.--
(1) In general.--Section 1860D-4(c)(2) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C.1395w-104(c)(2)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) in clause (i)--

(I) by inserting ``or other health care provider with
advanced training in medication management'' after
``furnished by a pharmacist''; and
(II) by striking ``targeted beneficiaries described in
clause (ii)'' and inserting ``targeted beneficiaries
specified under clause (ii)''

(ii) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following:
``(ii) Targeted beneficiaries.--The Secretary shall specify
the population of part D eligible individuals appropriate for
services under a medication therapy management program based
on the following characteristics:

``(I) Having a disease state in which evidence-based
medicine has demonstrated the benefit of medication therapy
management intervention based on objective outcome measures.
``(II) Taking multiple covered part D drugs or having a
disease state in which a complex combination medication
regimen is utilized.
``(III) Being identified as likely to incur annual costs
for covered part D drugs that exceed a level specified by the
Secretary or where acute or chronic decompensation of disease
would likely increase expenditures under the Federal Hospital
Insurance Trust Fund or the Federal Supplementary Medical
Insurance Trust Fund under sections 1817 and 1841,
respectively, such as through the requirement of emergency
care or acute hospitalization.'';

(B) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the
following:
``(B) Elements.--
``(i) Minimum defined package of services.--The Secretary
shall specify a minimum defined package of medication therapy
management services that shall be provided to each enrollee.
Such package shall be based on the following considerations:

``(I) Performing necessary assessments of the health status
of each enrollee.
``(II) Providing medication therapy review to identify,
resolve, and prevent medication-related problems, including
adverse events.
``(III) Increasing enrollee understanding to promote the
appropriate use of medications by enrollees and to reduce the
risk of potential adverse events associated with medications,
through beneficiary and family education, counseling, and
other appropriate means.
``(IV) Increasing enrollee adherence with prescription
medication regimens through medication refill reminders,
special packaging, and other compliance programs and other
appropriate means.
``(V) Promoting detection of adverse drug events and
patterns of overuse and underuse of prescription drugs.
``(VI) Developing a medication action plan which may alter
the medication regimen, when permitted by the State licensing
authority. This information should be provided to, or
accessible by, the primary health care provider of the
enrollee.
``(VII) Monitoring and evaluating the response to therapy
and evaluating the safety and effectiveness of the therapy,
which may include laboratory assessment.
``(VIII) Providing disease-specific medication therapy
management services when appropriate.
``(IX) Coordinating and integrating medication therapy
management services within the broader scope of health care
management services being provided to each enrollee.

``(ii) Delivery of services.--

``(I) Personal delivery.--To the extent feasible, face-to-
face interaction shall be the preferred method of delivery of
medication therapy management services.
``(II) Individualized.--Such services shall be patient-
specific and individualized and shall be provided directly to
the patient by a pharmacist or other health care provider
with advanced training in medication management.
``(III) Distinct from other activities.--Such services
shall be distinct from any activities related to formulary
development and use, generalized patient education and
information activities, and any population-focused quality
assurance measures for medication use.

``(iii) Opportunity to identify patients in need of
medication therapy management services.--The program shall
provide opportunities for health care providers to identify
patients who should receive medication therapy management
services.'';
(C) by striking subparagraph (E) and inserting the
following:
``(E) Pharmacy fees.--
``(i) In general.--The PDP sponsor of a prescription drug
plan shall pay pharmacists and others providing services
under the medication therapy management program under this
paragraph based on the time and intensity of services
provided to enrollees.
``(ii) Submission along with plan information.--Each such
sponsor shall disclose to the Secretary upon request the
amount of any such payments and shall submit a description of
how such payments are calculated along with the information
submitted under section 1860D-11(b). Such description shall
be submitted at the same time and in a similar manner to the
manner in which the information described in paragraph (2) of
such section is submitted.''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(F) Pharmacy access requirements.--The PDP sponsor of a
prescription drug plan shall secure the participation in its
network of a sufficient number of retail pharmacies to assure
that enrollees have the option of obtaining services under
the medication therapy management program under this
paragraph directly from community-based retail pharmacies.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to medication therapy management services
provided on or after January 1, 2008.
(b) Medication Therapy Management Demonstration Program.--
Section 1860D-4(c) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C.1395w-104(c)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(3) Community-based medication therapy management
demonstration program.--
``(A) Establishment.--
``(i) In general.--By not later than January 1, 2008, the
Secretary shall establish a 2-year demonstration program,
based on the recommendations of the Best Practices Commission
established under subparagraph (B), with both PDP sponsors of
prescription drug plans and Medicare Advantage Organizations
offering MA-PD plans, to examine the impact of medication
therapy management furnished by a pharmacist in a community-
based or ambulatory-based setting on quality of care,
spending under this part, and patient health.
``(ii) Sites.--

``(I) In general.--Subject to subclause (II), the Secretary
shall designate not less than 10 PDP sponsors of prescription
drug plans or Medicare Advantage Organizations offering MA-PD
plans, none of which provide prescription drug coverage under
such plans in the same PDP or MA region, respectively, to
conduct the demonstration program under this paragraph.
``(II) Designation consistent with recommendations of best
practices commission.--The Secretary shall ensure that the
designation of sites under subclause (I) is consistent with
the recommendations of the Best Practices Commission under
subparagraph (B)(ii).

``(B) Best practices commission.--
``(i) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a Best
Practices Commission composed of representatives from
pharmacy organizations, health care organizations,
beneficiary advocates, chronic disease groups, and other
stakeholders (as determined appropriate by the Secretary) for
the purpose of developing a best practices model for
medication therapy management.
``(ii) Recommendations.--The Commission shall submit to the
Secretary recommendations on the following:

``(I) The minimum number of enrollees that should be
included in the demonstration program, and at each
demonstration program site, to determine the impact of
medication therapy management furnished by a pharmacist in a
community-based setting on quality of care, spending under
this part, and patient health.
``(II) The number of urban and rural sites that should be
included in the demonstration program to ensure that
prescription drug plans and MA-PD plans offered in urban and
rural areas are adequately represented.
``(III) A best practices model for medication therapy
management to be implemented under the demonstration program
under this paragraph.

``(C) Reports.--
``(i) Interim report.--Not later than 1 year after the
commencement of the demonstration program, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress an interim report on such program.
``(ii) Final report.--Not later than 6 months after the
completion of the demonstration program, the Secretary shall
submit to Congress a final report on such program, together
with recommendations for such legislation and administrative
action as the Secretary determines appropriate.
``(D) Waiver authority.--The Secretary may waive such
requirements of titles XI and XVIII as may be necessary for
the purpose of carrying out the demonstration program under
this paragraph.''.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Pharmacist Access
and Recognition in Medicare Act. I have enjoyed working closely with
Chairman Cochran and Senator Talent on

[[Page S3222]]

this bill that will help protect the valuable role that pharmacists
play in our communities.
I have spent a lot of time over the past few months traveling around
my home State of Wyoming talking to seniors about the new Medicare
prescription drug benefit. This new voluntary benefit represents the
most significant improvement to Medicare since its inception in 1965.
Because of this new benefit, more seniors have prescription drug
coverage and are able to purchase the medicines they need. Since the
benefit took effect on January 1, 2006, 17,700 beneficiaries in Wyoming
have signed up for prescription drug coverage and 27 million
beneficiaries nationwide have drug coverage. I encourage all
beneficiaries to enroll in a prescription drug plan before May 15,
2006.
I strongly support our community pharmacists. The changeover to
Medicare Part D hasn't been easy and has produced several obstacles
they have had to deal with as they have worked to serve Medicare
beneficiaries. In traveling around my State over the past few months, I
have talked to a few pharmacists who mentioned a few key problems they
are facing with this new Medicare program that I believe we should
address.
The first is an issue of cash flow management. As the only accountant
in the United States Senate, I understand this problem. Most
pharmacists have to pay their wholesalers like clockwork two times a
month, but they are not receiving their reimbursement from the
prescription drug plans in a similar timely fashion. This bill changes
that. The bill states that plans have to reimburse all ``clean claims''
every 14 days. The bill also facilitates a quicker reimbursement by
specifying that claims submitted electronically shall be paid by
electronic transfer of funds. This is a small change in the law that I
believe will play a large role in helping ease the transition to the
new program for our local and community pharmacists.
The second issue I have heard about is called co-branding. Some of
the prescription drug plans have partnered with some of the larger
pharmacies and the plans are putting pharmacy logos on the benefit
cards the beneficiaries use to get their prescriptions filled. Some
people have told me that this is very confusing, because beneficiaries
think that they must go to the pharmacy listed on the card. My bill
says that co-branding is no longer allowed and all newly issued cards
will not have pharmacy logos on them.
The final thing this bill does is expand upon what was in the
Medicare bill that passed in 2003 regarding medication therapy
management programs. I am pleased to say that Wyoming is ahead of the
curve in this area. A few years ago, the Wyoming Department of Health
partnered with the University of Wyoming to provide a service called
Wyoming PharmAssist, which directly connects patients with registered
pharmacists to review their medications for possible drug interactions
and duplications. I was pleased to learn that this service is more
advanced than systems in other States, providing patients with ways to
reduce their monthly medication costs while improving safety. The
Wyoming PharmAssist program can save clients $152 per month and $1,844
a year. Wyoming Pharm-Assist pays registered pharmacists for these
unique services and is a model for the Nation. My bill tries to make
the Federal program more like the very successful program in Wyoming.
I commend all the pharmacists across the country who are working so
hard to make this new Medicare program work. They are getting life
saving drugs to seniors who may not have been able to afford them
before. I am proud to say I voted for this program back in 2003 and I
am pleased with all the progress we are making.
I believe the Senate operates under what I call the 80/20 rule. 80
percent of the things that get done around here are non-contentious
issues with support from both parties. The other 20 percent are the
contentious issues that we seem to spend all our time talking about. I
think this bill falls into the 80 percent category. This is a small
bill that will do a lot of good for our pharmacists. It has wide
support and I look forward to working with Chairman Grassley to help
move this bill through his Committee.
I invite my colleagues to join me and Senators Cochran and Talent as
sponsors of this bill to allow pharmacists to continue to provide the
best quality care for seniors and the disabled who rely on them for
their medications.
I ask that the text of the bill following my statement be placed in
the Record.
______

By Mr. BURR (for himself, Mr. Frist, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Gregg, Mr.
Alexander, and Mrs. Dole):
S. 2564. A bill to prepare and strengthen the biodefenses of the
United States against deliberate, accidental, and natural outbreaks of
illness, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the
bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2564

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 ``Biodefense and Pandemic
Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

The table of contents of this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
Sec. 3. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority;
National Biodefense Science Board.
Sec. 4. Clarification of countermeasures covered by Project BioShield.
Sec. 5. Orphan drug market exclusivity for countermeasure products.
Sec. 6. Technical assistance.
Sec. 7. Collaboration and coordination.
Sec. 8. Procurement.
Sec. 9. Rule of construction.

SEC. 3. BIOMEDICAL ADVANCED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY; NATIONAL BIODEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD.

(a) In General.--Title III of the Public Health Service Act
(42 U.S.C. 241 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section
319K the following:

``SEC. 319L. BIOMEDICAL ADVANCED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY.

``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) BARDA.--The term `BARDA' means the Biomedical
Advanced Research and Development Authority.
``(2) Fund.--The term `Fund' means the Biodefense Medical
Countermeasure Development Fund established under subsection
(d).
``(3) Other transactions.--The term `other transactions'
means transactions, other than procurement contracts, grants,
and cooperative agreements, such as the Secretary of Defense
may enter into under section 2371 of title 10, United States
Code.
``(4) Qualified countermeasure.--The term `qualified
countermeasure' has the meaning given such term in section
319F-1.
``(5) Qualified pandemic or epidemic product.--The term
`qualified pandemic or epidemic product' has the meaning
given the term in section 319F-3.
``(6) Advanced research and development.--
``(A) In general.--The term `advanced research and
development' means, with respect to a product that is or may
become a qualified countermeasure or a qualified pandemic or
epidemic product, activities that predominantly--
``(i) are conducted after basic research and preclinical
development of the product; and
``(ii) are related to manufacturing the product on a
commercial scale and in a form that satisfies the regulatory
requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
or under section 351 of this Act.
``(B) Activities included.--The term under subparagraph (A)
includes--
``(i) testing of the product to determine whether the
product may be approved, cleared, or licensed under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or under section 351 of
this Act for a use that is or may be the basis for such
product becoming a qualified countermeasure or qualified
pandemic or epidemic product, or to help obtain such
approval, clearance, or license;
``(ii) design and development of tests or models, including
animal models, for such testing;
``(iii) activities to facilitate manufacture of the product
on a commercial scale with consistently high quality, as well
as to improve and make available new technologies to increase
manufacturing surge capacity;
``(iv) activities to improve the shelf-life of the product
or technologies for administering the product; and
``(v) such other activities as are part of the advanced
stages of testing, refinement, improvement, or preparation of
the product for such use and as are specified by the
Secretary.
``(7) Security countermeasure.--The term `security
countermeasure' has the meaning given such term in section
319F-2.

[[Page S3223]]

``(8) Research tool.--The term `research tool' means a
device, technology, biological material (including a cell
line or an antibody), reagent, animal model, computer system,
computer software, or analytical technique that is developed
to assist in the discovery, development, or manufacture of
qualified countermeasures or qualified pandemic or epidemic
products.
``(9) Program manager.--The term `program manager' means an
individual appointed to carry out functions under this
section and authorized to provide project oversight and
management of strategic initiatives.
``(10) Person.--The term `person' includes an individual,
partnership, corporation, association, entity, or public or
private corporation, and a Federal, State, or local
government agency or department.
``(b) Strategic Plan for Countermeasure Research,
Development, and Procurement.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date
of enactment of the Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug
Development Act of 2006, the Secretary shall develop and make
public a strategic plan to integrate biodefense and emerging
infectious disease requirements with the advanced research
and development, strategic initiatives for innovation, and
the procurement of qualified countermeasures and qualified
pandemic or epidemic products.
``(2) Content.--The strategic plan under paragraph (1)
shall guide--
``(A) research and development, conducted or supported by
the Department of Health and Human Services, of qualified
countermeasures and qualified pandemic or epidemic products
against possible biological, chemical, radiological, and
nuclear agents and to emerging infectious diseases;
``(B) innovation in technologies that may assist advanced
research and development of qualified countermeasures and
qualified pandemic or epidemic products (such research and
development referred to in this section as `countermeasure
and product advanced research and development'); and
``(C) procurement of such qualified countermeasures and
qualified pandemic or epidemic products by such Department.
``(c) Biomedical Advanced Research and Development
Authority.--
``(1) Establishment.--There is established within the
Department of Health and Human Services the Biomedical
Advanced Research and Development Authority.
``(2) In general.--Based upon the strategic plan described
in subsection (b), the Secretary shall coordinate and oversee
the acceleration of countermeasure and product advanced
research and development by--
``(A) facilitating collaboration among the Department of
Health and Human Services, other Federal agencies, relevant
industries, academia, and other persons, with respect to such
advanced research and development;
``(B) promoting countermeasure and product advanced
research and development;
``(C) facilitating contacts between interested persons and
the offices or employees authorized by the Secretary to
advise such persons regarding requirements under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under section 351 of this
Act; and
``(D) promoting innovation to reduce the time and cost of
countermeasure and product advanced research and development.
``(3) Director.--The BARDA shall be headed by a Director
(referred to in this section as the `Director') who shall be
appointed by the Secretary and to whom the Secretary shall
delegate such functions and authorities as necessary to
implement this section.
``(4) Duties.--
``(A) Collaboration.--To carry out the purpose described in
paragraph (2)(A), the Secretary shall--
``(i) facilitate and increase the expeditious and direct
communication between the Department of Health and Human
Services and relevant persons with respect to countermeasure
and product advanced research and development, including by--

``(I) facilitating such communication regarding the
processes for procuring such advanced research and
development with respect to qualified countermeasures and
qualified pandemic or epidemic products of interest; and
``(II) soliciting information about and data from research
on potential qualified countermeasures and qualified pandemic
or epidemic products and related technologies;

``(ii) at least annually--

``(I) convene meetings with representatives from relevant
industries, academia, other Federal agencies, international
agencies as appropriate, and other interested persons;
``(II) sponsor opportunities to demonstrate the operation
and effectiveness of relevant biodefense countermeasure
technologies; and
``(III) convene such working groups on countermeasure and
product advanced research and development as the Secretary
may determine are necessary to carry out this section; and

``(iii) carry out the activities described in section 7 of
the Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act
of 2006.
``(B) Support advanced research and development.--To carry
out the purpose described in paragraph (2)(B), the Secretary
shall--
``(i) conduct ongoing searches for, and support calls for,
potential qualified countermeasures and qualified pandemic or
epidemic products;
``(ii) direct and coordinate the countermeasure and product
advanced research and development activities of the
Department of Health and Human Services;
``(iii) establish strategic initiatives to accelerate
countermeasure and product advanced research and development
and innovation in such areas as the Secretary may identify as
priority unmet need areas; and
``(iv) award contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, and
enter into other transactions, for countermeasure and product
advanced research and development.
``(C) Facilitating advice.--To carry out the purpose
described in paragraph (2)(C) the Secretary shall--
``(i) connect interested persons with the offices or
employees authorized by the Secretary to advise such persons
regarding the regulatory requirements under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under section 351 of this Act
related to the approval, clearance, or licensure of qualified
countermeasures or qualified pandemic or epidemic products;
and
``(ii) ensure that, with respect to persons performing
countermeasure and product advanced research and development
funded under this section, such offices or employees provide
such advice in a manner that is ongoing and that is otherwise
designated to facilitate expeditious development of qualified
countermeasures and qualified pandemic or epidemic products
that may achieve such approval, clearance, or licensure.
``(D) Supporting innovation.--To carry out the purpose
described in paragraph (2)(D), the Secretary may award
contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements, or enter into
other transactions, such as prize payments, to promote--
``(i) innovation in technologies that may assist
countermeasure and product advanced research and development;
``(ii) research on and development of research tools and
other devices and technologies; and
``(iii) research to promote strategic initiatives, such as
rapid diagnostics, broad spectrum antimicrobials, and vaccine
manufacturing technologies.
``(5) Transaction authorities.--
``(A) Other transactions.--In carrying out the functions
under subparagraph (B) or (D) of paragraph (4), the Secretary
shall have authority to enter into other transactions for
countermeasure and product advanced research and development.
``(B) Expedited authorities.--
``(i) In general.--In awarding contracts, grants, and
cooperative agreements, and in entering into other
transactions under subparagraph (B) or (D) of paragraph (4),
the Secretary shall have the expedited procurement
authorities, the authority to expedite peer review, and the
authority for personal services contracts, supplied by
subsections (b), (c), and (d) of section 319F-1.
``(ii) Application of provisions.--Provisions in such
section 319F-1 that apply to such authorities and that
require institution of internal controls, limit review,
provide for Federal Tort Claims Act coverage of personal
services contractors, and commit decisions to the discretion
of the Secretary shall apply to the authorities as exercised
pursuant to this paragraph.
``(iii) Authority to limit competition.--For purposes of
applying section 319F-1(b)(1)(D) to this paragraph, the
phrase `BioShield Program under the Project BioShield Act of
2004' shall be deemed to mean the countermeasure and product
advanced research and development program under this section.
``(iv) Availability of data.--The Secretary shall require
that, as a condition of being awarded a contract, grant,
cooperative agreement, or other transaction under
subparagraph (B) or (D) of paragraph (4), a person make
available to the Secretary on an ongoing basis, and submit
upon request to the Secretary, all data related to or
resulting from countermeasure and product advanced research
and development carried out pursuant to this section.
``(C) Advance payments; advertising.--The authority of the
Secretary to enter into contracts under this section shall
not be limited by section 3324(a) of title 31, United States
Code, or by section 3709 of the Revised Statutes of the
United States (41 U.S.C. 5).
``(D) Milestone-based payments allowed.--In awarding
contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements, and in
entering into other transactions, under this section, the
Secretary may use milestone-based awards and payments.
``(E) Foreign nationals eligible.--The Secretary may under
this section award contracts, grants, and cooperative
agreements to, and may enter into other transactions with,
highly qualified foreign national persons outside the United
States, alone or in collaboration with American participants,
when such transactions may inure to the benefit of the
American people.
``(F) Establishment of research centers.--The Secretary may
establish one or more federally-funded research and
development centers, or university-affiliated research
centers in accordance with section 303(c)(3) of the Federal
Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C.
253(c)(3)).
``(6) Vulnerable populations.--In carrying out the
functions under this section, the Secretary may give priority
to the advanced research and development of qualified
countermeasures and qualified pandemic or epidemic products
that are likely to be safe and effective with respect to
children,

[[Page S3224]]

pregnant women, and other vulnerable populations.
``(7) Personnel authorities.--
``(A) Specially qualified scientific and professional
personnel.--In addition to any other personnel authorities,
the Secretary may--
``(i) without regard to those provisions of title 5, United
States Code, governing appointments in the competitive
service, appoint highly qualified individuals to scientific
or professional positions in BARDA, such as program managers,
to carry out this section; and
``(ii) compensate them in the same manner in which
individuals appointed under section 9903 of such title are
compensated, without regard to the provisions of chapter 51
and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to
classification and General Schedule pay rates.
``(B) Special consultants.--In carrying out this section,
the Secretary may--
``(i) appoint special consultants pursuant to section
207(f); and
``(ii) accept voluntary and uncompensated services.
``(d) Fund.--
``(1) Establishment.--There is established the Biodefense
Medical Countermeasure Development Fund, which shall be
available to carry out this section.
``(2) Funds.--
``(A) First fiscal year.--
``(i) Authorization and appropriation.--There are
authorized to be appropriated and there are appropriated to
the Fund $340,000,000 to carry out this section for fiscal
year 2007. Such funds shall remain available until expended.
``(ii) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated, in addition to the amounts
appropriated under clause (i), $160,000,000 to carry out this
section for fiscal year 2007. Such funds shall remain
available until expended.
``(B) Subsequent fiscal years.--
``(i) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this section--

``(I) $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
``(II) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2009
through 2012.

``(ii) Availability of funds.--Such sums authorized under
clause (i) shall remain available until expended.
``(e) Inapplicability of Certain Provisions.--
``(1) Disclosure.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall withhold from
disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code,
specific technical data or scientific information that is
created or obtained during the countermeasure and product
advanced research and development funded by the Secretary
that reveal vulnerabilities of existing medical or public
health defenses against biological, chemical, nuclear, or
radiological threats. Such information shall be deemed to be
information described in section 552(b)(3) of title 5, United
States Code.
``(B) Oversight.--Information subject to nondisclosure
under subparagraph (A) shall be reviewed by the Secretary
every 5 years to determine the relevance or necessity of
continued nondisclosure.
``(2) Federal advisory committee act.--Section 14 of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not
apply to a working group of BARDA or to the National
Biodefense Science Board under section 319M.

``SEC. 319M. NATIONAL BIODEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD AND WORKING
GROUPS.

``(a) In General.--
``(1) Establishment and function.--The Secretary shall
establish the National Biodefense Science Board (referred to
in this section as the `Board') to provide expert advice and
guidance to the Secretary on scientific, technical and other
matters of special interest to the Department of Health and
Human Services regarding current and future chemical,
biological, nuclear, and radiological agents, whether
naturally occurring, accidental, or deliberate.
``(2) Membership.--The membership of the Board shall be
comprised of individuals who represent the Nation's
preeminent scientific, public health, and medical experts, as
follows--
``(A) such Federal officials as the Secretary may determine
are necessary to support the functions of the Board;
``(B) four individuals representing the pharmaceutical,
biotechnology, and device industries;
``(C) four individuals representing academia; and
``(D) five other members as determined appropriate by the
Secretary.
``(3) Term of appointment.--A member of the Board described
in subparagraph (B), (C), or (D) of paragraph (2) shall serve
for a term of 3 years, except that the Secretary may adjust
the terms of the initial Board appointees in order to provide
for a staggered term of appointment for all members.
``(4) Consecutive appointments; maximum terms.--A member
may be appointed to serve not more than 3 terms on the Board
and may serve not more than 2 consecutive terms.
``(5) Duties.--The Board shall--
``(A) advise the Secretary on current and future trends,
challenges, and opportunities presented by advances in
biological and life sciences, biotechnology, and genetic
engineering with respect to threats posed by naturally
occurring infectious diseases and chemical, biological,
radiological, and nuclear agents;
``(B) at the request of the Secretary, review and consider
any information and findings received from the working groups
established under subsection (b); and
``(C) at the request of the Secretary, provide
recommendations and findings for expanded, intensified, and
coordinated biodefense research and development activities.
``(6) Meetings.--
``(A) Initial meeting.--Not later than one year after the
date of enactment of the Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and
Drug Development Act of 2006, the Secretary shall hold the
first meeting of the Board.
``(B) Subsequent meetings.--The Board shall meet at the
call of the Secretary, but in no case less than twice
annually.
``(7) Vacancies.--Any vacancy in the Board shall not affect
its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner as the
original appointment.
``(8) Chairperson.--The Secretary shall appoint a
chairperson from among the members of the Board.
``(9) Powers.--
``(A) Hearings.--The Board may hold such hearings, sit and
act at such times and places, take such testimony, and
receive such evidence as the Board considers advisable to
carry out this subsection.
``(B) Postal services.--The Board may use the United States
mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as
other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
``(10) Personnel.--
``(A) Employees of the federal government.--A member of the
Board that is an employee of the Federal Government may not
receive additional pay, allowances, or benefits by reason of
the member's service on the Board.
``(B) Other members.--A member of the Board that is not an
employee of the Federal Government may be compensated at a
rate not to exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of
basic pay prescribed for level IV of the Executive Schedule
under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, for each
day (including travel time) during which the member is
engaged in the actual performance of duties as a member of
the Board.
``(C) Travel expenses.--Each member of the Board shall
receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, in accordance with applicable provisions under
subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code.
``(D) Detail of government employees.--Any Federal
Government employee may be detailed to the Board with the
approval for the contributing agency without reimbursement,
and such detail shall be without interruption or loss of
civil service status or privilege.
``(b) Other Working Groups.--The Secretary may establish a
working group of experts, or may use an existing working
group or advisory committee, to--
``(1) identify innovative research with the potential to be
developed as a qualified countermeasure or a qualified
pandemic or epidemic product;
``(2) identify accepted animal models for particular
diseases and conditions associated with any biological,
chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent, any toxin, or any
potential pandemic infectious disease, and identify
strategies to accelerate animal model and research tool
development and validation; and
``(3) obtain advice regarding supporting and facilitating
advanced research and development related to qualified
countermeasures and qualified pandemic or epidemic products
that are likely to be safe and effective with respect to
children, pregnant women, and other vulnerable populations,
and other issues regarding activities under this section that
affect such populations.
``(c) Definitions.--Any term that is defined in section
319L and that is used in this section shall have the same
meaning in this section as such term is given in section
319L.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated $1,000,000 to carry out this
section for fiscal year 2007 and each fiscal year
thereafter.''.
(b) Offset of Funding.--The amount appropriated under the
subheading ``Biodefense Countermeasures'' under the heading
``Emergency Preparedness and Response'' in title III of the
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2004
(Public Law 108-90) shall be decreased by $340,000,000.

SEC. 4. CLARIFICATION OF COUNTERMEASURES COVERED BY PROJECT
BIOSHIELD.

(a) Qualified Countermeasure.--Section 319F-1(a) of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d-6a(a)) is amended
by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2) Definitions.--In this section:
``(A) Qualified countermeasure.--The term `qualified
countermeasure' means a drug (as that term is defined by
section 201(g)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1))), biological product (as that term is
defined by section 351(i) of this Act (42 U.S.C. 262(i))), or
device (as that term is defined by section 201(h) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(h))),
that the Secretary determines to be a priority (consistent
with sections 302(2) and 304(a) of the Homeland Security Act
of 2002) to--
``(i) diagnose, mitigate, prevent, or treat harm from any
biological agent (including organisms that cause an
infectious disease) or toxin, chemical, radiological, or
nuclear agent that may cause a public health emergency
affecting national security; or

[[Page S3225]]

``(ii) diagnose, mitigate, prevent, or treat harm from a
condition that may result in adverse health consequences or
death and may be caused by administering a drug, biological
product, or device that is used as described in this
subparagraph.
``(B) Infectious disease.--The term `infectious disease'
means a disease potentially caused by a pathogenic organism
(including a bacteria, virus, fungus, or parasite) that is
acquired by a person and that reproduces in that person.''.
(b) Security Countermeasure.--Section 319F-2(c)(1)(B) is
amended by striking ``treat, identify, or prevent'' each
place it appears and inserting ``diagnose, mitigate, prevent,
or treat''.
(c) Limitation on Use of Funds.--Section 510(a) of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 320(a)) is amended by
adding at the end the following: ``None of the funds made
available under this subsection shall be used to procure
countermeasures to diagnose, mitigate, prevent, or treat harm
resulting from any naturally occurring infectious disease.''.

SEC. 5. ORPHAN DRUG MARKET EXCLUSIVITY FOR COUNTERMEASURE
PRODUCTS.

(a) In General.--Section 527 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360cc) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(c) Market Exclusivities for Countermeasures,
Antibiotics, and Antiinfectives.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
with respect to a drug that is designated under section 526
for a rare disease or condition, the period referred to in
this section is deemed to be 10 years in lieu of 7 years if--
``(A) such rare disease or condition is directly caused by
a--
``(i)(I) biological agent (including an organism that
causes infectious disease);
``(II) toxin; or
``(III) chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent; and
``(ii) such biological agent (including an organism that
causes an infectious disease), toxin, or chemical,
radiological or nuclear agent, is identified as a material
threat under subsection (c)(2)(A)(ii) of section 319F-2 of
the Public Health Service Act;
``(B) such drug is determined by the Secretary to be a
security countermeasure under subsection (c)(1)(B) of such
section 319F-2 with respect to such agent or toxin;
``(C) no active ingredient (including a salt or ester of
the active ingredient) of the drug has been approved under an
application under section 505(b) prior to the submission of
the request for designation of the new drug under section
526; and
``(D) notice respecting the designation of a drug under
section 526 has been made available to the public.
``(2) Application of provision.--Paragraph (1) shall apply
with respect to an antibiotic drug or antiinfective drug
designated under section 526 only if--
``(A) no active ingredient (including a salt or ester of
the active ingredient) of such drug has been approved as a
feed or water additive for an animal in the absence of any
clinical sign of disease in the animal for growth promotion,
feed efficiency, weight gain, routine disease prevention, or
other routine purpose;
``(B) no active ingredient (including a salt or ester of
the active ingredient) of such drug has been approved for use
in humans under section 505 or approved for human use under
section 507 (as in effect prior to November 21, 1997) prior
to the submission of the request for designation of the new
drug under section 526;
``(C) the Secretary has made a determination that--
``(i) such drug is not a member of a class of antibiotics
that is particularly prone to creating antibiotic resistance;
``(ii) sufficient antibiotics do not already exist in the
same class;
``(iii) such drug represents a significant clinical
improvement over other antibiotic drugs;
``(iv) such drug is for a serious or life-threatening
disease or conditions; and
``(v) such drug is for a countermeasure use; and
``(D) notice respecting the designation of a drug under
section 526 has been made available to the public.
``(3) Rule of construction.--With respect to a drug to
which this subsection applies, and which is also approved for
additional uses to which this subsection does not apply,
nothing in section 505(b)(2) or 505(j) shall prohibit the
Secretary from approving a drug under section 505(b)(2) or
505(j) with different or additional labeling for the drug as
the Secretary deems necessary to ensure that the drug is safe
and effective for the uses to which this subsection does not
apply.
``(4) Study and report.--Not later than January 1, 2011,
the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a
study and submit to Congress a report concerning the effect
of and activities under this subsection. Such study and
report shall examine all relevant issues including--
``(A) the effectiveness of this subsection in improving the
availability of novel countermeasures for procurement under
section 319F-2 of the Public Health Service Act;
``(B) the effectiveness of this subsection in improving the
availability of drugs that treat serious or life threatening
diseases or conditions and offer significant clinical
improvements;
``(C) the continued need for additional incentives to
create more antibiotics and antiinfectives;
``(D) the economic impact of the section on taxpayers and
consumers, including--
``(i) the economic value of additional drugs provided for
under this subsection, including the impact of improved
health care and hospitalization times associated with
treatment of nosocomial infections; and
``(ii) the economic cost of any delay in the availability
of lower cost generic drugs on patients, the insured, and
Federal and private health plans;
``(E) the adequacy of limits under subparagraphs (A) and
(B) of paragraph (2) to maximize the useful period during
which antibiotic drugs or antiinfective drugs remain
therapeutically useful treatments; and
``(F) any recommendations for modifications to this
subsection that the Comptroller determines to be appropriate.
``(5) Effective date.--This subsection shall apply only to
products for which an applicant has applied for designation
under section 526 after the date of enactment of the
Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of
2006.
``(6) Sunset.--This subsection shall not apply with respect
to any designation of a drug under section 526 made by the
Secretary on or after October 1, 2011.''.

SEC. 6. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

Subchapter E of chapter V of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb et seq.) is amended by adding
at the end the following:

``SEC. 565. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

``The Secretary, in consultation with the Commissioner of
Food and Drugs, shall establish within the Food and Drug
Administration a team of experts on manufacturing and
regulatory activities (including compliance with current Good
Manufacturing Practice) to provide both off-site and on-site
technical assistance to the manufacturers of qualified
countermeasures (as defined in section 319F-1 of the Public
Health Service Act), security countermeasures (as defined in
section 319F-2 of such Act), or vaccines, at the request of
such a manufacturer and at the discretion of the Secretary,
if the Secretary determines that a shortage or potential
shortage may occur in the United States in the supply of such
vaccines or countermeasures and that the provision of such
assistance would be beneficial in helping alleviate or avert
such shortage.''.

SEC. 7. COLLABORATION AND COORDINATION.

(a) Limited Antitrust Exemption.--
(1) Meetings and consultations to discuss security
countermeasures, qualified countermeasures, or qualified
pandemic or epidemic product development.--
(A) Authority to conduct meetings and consultations.--The
Secretary of Health and Human Services (referred to in this
subsection as the ``Secretary''), in coordination with the
Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, may
conduct meetings and consultations with persons engaged in
the development of a security countermeasure (as defined in
section 319F-2 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
247d-6b)) (as amended by this Act), a qualified
countermeasure (as defined in section 319F-1 of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d-6a))) (as amended by this
Act), or a qualified pandemic or epidemic product (as defined
in section 319F-3 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
247d-6d)) for the purpose of the development, manufacture,
distribution, purchase, or storage of a countermeasure or
product. The Secretary may convene such meeting or
consultation at the request of the Secretary of Homeland
Security, the Attorney General, the Chairman of the Federal
Trade Commission (referred to in this section as the
``Chairman''), or any interested person, or upon initiation
by the Secretary. The Secretary shall give prior notice of
any such meeting or consultation, and the topics to be
discussed, to the Attorney General, the Chairman, and the
Secretary of Homeland Security.
(B) Meeting and consultation conditions.--A meeting or
consultation conducted under subparagraph (A) shall--
(i) be chaired or, in the case of a consultation,
facilitated by the Secretary;
(ii) be open to persons involved in the development,
manufacture, distribution, purchase, or storage of a
countermeasure or product, as determined by the Secretary;
(iii) be open to the Attorney General, the Secretary of
Homeland Security, and the Chairman;
(iv) be limited to discussions involving covered
activities; and
(v) be conducted in such manner as to ensure that no
national security, confidential commercial, or proprietary
information is disclosed outside the meeting or consultation.
(C) Limitation.--The Secretary may not require participants
to disclose confidential commercial or proprietary
information.
(D) Transcript.--The Secretary shall maintain a complete
verbatim transcript of each meeting or consultation conducted
under this subsection, which shall not be disclosed under
section 552 of title 5, United States Code, unless such
Secretary, in consultation with the Attorney General and the
Secretary of Homeland Security, determines that disclosure
would pose no threat to national security. The determination
regarding possible threats to national security shall not be
subject to judicial review.
(E) Exemption.--

[[Page S3226]]

(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), it shall not be a
violation of the antitrust laws for any person to participate
in a meeting or consultation conducted in accordance with
this paragraph.
(ii) Limitation.--Clause (i) shall not apply to any
agreement or conduct that results from a meeting or
consultation and that is not covered by an exemption granted
under paragraph (4).
(2) Submission of written agreements.--The Secretary shall
submit each written agreement regarding covered activities
that is made pursuant to meetings or consultations conducted
under paragraph (1) to the Attorney General and the Chairman
for consideration. In addition to the proposed agreement
itself, any submission shall include--
(A) an explanation of the intended purpose of the
agreement;
(B) a specific statement of the substance of the agreement;
(C) a description of the methods that will be utilized to
achieve the objectives of the agreement;
(D) an explanation of the necessity for a cooperative
effort among the particular participating persons to achieve
the objectives of the agreement; and
(E) any other relevant information determined necessary by
the Attorney General, in consultation with the Chairman and
the Secretary.
(3) Exemption for conduct under approved agreement.--It
shall not be a violation of the antitrust laws for a person
to engage in conduct in accordance with a written agreement
to the extent that such agreement has been granted an
exemption under paragraph (4), during the period for which
the exemption is in effect.
(4) Action on written agreements.--
(A) In general.--The Attorney General, in consultation with
the Chairman, shall grant, deny, grant in part and deny in
part, or propose modifications to an exemption request
regarding a written agreement submitted under paragraph (2),
in a written statement to the Secretary, within 15 business
days of the receipt of such request. An exemption granted
under this paragraph shall take effect immediately.
(B) Extension.--The Attorney General may extend the 15-day
period referred to in subparagraph (A) for an additional
period of not to exceed 10 business days.
(C) Determination.--An exemption shall be granted regarding
a written agreement submitted in accordance with paragraph
(2) only to the extent that the Attorney General, in
consultation with the Chairman and the Secretary, finds that
the conduct that will be exempted will not have any
substantial anticompetitive effect that is not reasonably
necessary for ensuring the availability of the countermeasure
or product involved.
(5) Limitation on and renewal of exemptions.--An exemption
granted under paragraph (4) shall be limited to covered
activities, and such exemption shall be renewed (with
modifications, as appropriate, consistent with the finding
described in paragraph (4)(C)), on the date that is 3 years
after the date on which the exemption is granted unless the
Attorney General in consultation with the Chairman determines
that the exemption should not be renewed (with modifications,
as appropriate) considering the factors described in
paragraph (4).
(6) Authority to obtain information.--Consideration by the
Attorney General for granting or renewing an exemption
submitted under this section shall be considered an antitrust
investigation for purposes of the Antitrust Civil Process Act
(15 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.).
(7) Limitation on parties.--The use of any information
acquired under an agreement for which an exemption has been
granted under paragraph (4), for any purpose other than
specified in the exemption, shall be subject to the antitrust
laws and any other applicable laws.
(8) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of
enactment of this Act and biannually thereafter, the Attorney
General and the Chairman shall report to Congress on the use
of the exemption from the antitrust laws provided by this
subsection.
(b) Sunset.--The applicability of this section shall expire
at the end of the 6-year period that begins on the date of
enactment of this Act.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Antitrust laws.--The term ``antitrust laws''--
(A) has the meaning given such term in subsection (a) of
the first section of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12(a)),
except that such term includes section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45) to the extent such section 5
applies to unfair methods of competition; and
(B) includes any State law similar to the laws referred to
in subparagraph (A).
(2) Countermeasure or product.--The term ``countermeasure
or product'' refers to a security countermeasure, qualified
countermeasure, or qualified pandemic or epidemic product (as
those terms are defined in subsection (a)(1)).
(3) Covered activities.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the term ``covered activities'' includes any activity
relating to the development, manufacture, distribution,
purchase, or storage of a countermeasure or product.
(B) Exception.--The term ``covered activities'' shall not
include, with respect to a meeting or consultation conducted
under subsection (a)(1) or an agreement for which an
exemption has been granted under subsection (a)(4), the
following activities involving 2 or more persons:
(i) Exchanging information among competitors relating to
costs, profitability, or distribution of any product,
process, or service if such information is not reasonably
necessary to carry out covered activities--

(I) with respect to a countermeasure or product regarding
which such meeting or consultation is being conducted; or
(II) that are described in the agreement as exempted.

(ii) Entering into any agreement or engaging in any other
conduct--

(I) to restrict or require the sale, licensing, or sharing
of inventions, developments, products, processes, or services
not developed through, produced by, or distributed or sold
through such covered activities; or
(II) to restrict or require participation, by any person
participating in such covered activities, in other research
and development activities, except as reasonably necessary to
prevent the misappropriation of proprietary information
contributed by any person participating in such covered
activities or of the results of such covered activities.

(iii) Entering into any agreement or engaging in any other
conduct allocating a market with a competitor that is not
expressly exempted from the antitrust laws under subsection
(a)(4).
(iv) Exchanging information among competitors relating to
production (other than production by such covered activities)
of a product, process, or service if such information is not
reasonably necessary to carry out such covered activities.
(v) Entering into any agreement or engaging in any other
conduct restricting, requiring, or otherwise involving the
production of a product, process, or service that is not
expressly exempted from the antitrust laws under subsection
(a)(4).
(vi) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection,
entering into any agreement or engaging in any other conduct
to restrict or require participation by any person
participating in such covered activities, in any unilateral
or joint activity that is not reasonably necessary to carry
out such covered activities.
(vii) Entering into any agreement or engaging in any other
conduct restricting or setting the price at which a
countermeasure or product is offered for sale, whether by bid
or otherwise.

SEC. 8. PROCUREMENT.

Section 319F-2 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
247d-6b) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by inserting ``AND SECURITY
COUNTERMEASURE PROCUREMENTS'' before the period; and
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Biomedical'';
(B) in paragraph (5)(B)(i), by striking ``to meet the needs
of the stockpile'' and inserting ``to meet the stockpile
needs'';
(C) in paragraph (7)(B)--
(i) by striking the subparagraph heading and all that
follows through ``Homeland Security Secretary'' and inserting
the following: ``Interagency agreement; cost.--The Homeland
Security Secretary''; and
(ii) by striking clause (ii);
(D) in paragraph (7)(C)(ii)--
(i) by amending clause (I) to read as follows:

``(I) Payment conditioned on delivery.--The contract shall
provide that no payment may be made until delivery of a
portion, acceptable to the Secretary, of the total number of
units contracted for, except that, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the contract may provide that, if the
Secretary determines (in the Secretary's discretion) that an
advance payment, partial payment for significant milestones,
or payment to increase manufacturing capacity is necessary to
ensure success of a project, the Secretary shall pay an
amount, not to exceed 10 percent of the contract amount, in
advance of delivery. The Secretary shall, to the extent
practicable, make the determination of advance payment at the
same time as the issuance of a solicitation. The contract
shall provide that such advance payment is required to be
repaid if there is a failure to perform by the vendor under
the contract. The contract may also provide for additional
advance payments of 5 percent each for meeting the milestones
specified in such contract. Provided that the specified
milestones are reached, these advanced payments of 5 percent
shall not be required to be repaid. Nothing in this subclause
shall be construed as affecting the rights of vendors under
provisions of law or regulation (including the Federal
Acquisition Regulation) relating to the termination of
contracts for the convenience of the Government.''; and

(ii) by adding at the end the following:

``(VII) Sales exclusivity.--The contract may provide that
the vendor is the exclusive supplier of the product to the
Federal Government for a specified period of time, not to
exceed the term of the contract, on the condition that the
vendor is able to satisfy the needs of the Government. During
the agreed period of sales exclusivity, the vendor shall not
assign its rights of sales exclusivity to another entity or
entities without approval by the Secretary. Such a sales
exclusivity provision in such a contract shall constitute a
valid basis for a sole source procurement under section
303(c)(1) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services
Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253(c)(1)).

[[Page S3227]]

``(VIII) Surge capacity.--The contract may provide that the
vendor establish domestic manufacturing capacity of the
product to ensure that additional production of the product
is available in the event that the Secretary determines that
there is a need to quickly purchase additional quantities of
the product. Such contract may provide a fee to the vendor
for establishing and maintaining such capacity in excess of
the initial requirement for the purchase of the product.
Additionally, the cost of maintaining the domestic
manufacturing capacity shall be an allowable and allocable
direct cost of the contract.
``(IX) Contract terms.--The Secretary, in any contract for
procurement under this section, may specify--

``(aa) the dosing and administration requirements for
countermeasures to be developed and procured;
``(bb) the amount of funding that will be dedicated by the
Secretary for development and acquisition of the
countermeasure; and
``(cc) the specifications the countermeasure must meet to
qualify for procurement under a contract under this
section.''; and
(E) in paragraph (8)(A), by adding at the end the
following: ``Such agreements may allow other executive
agencies to order qualified and security countermeasures
under procurement contracts or other agreements established
by the Secretary. Such ordering process (including transfers
of appropriated funds between an agency and the Department of
Health and Human Services as reimbursements for such orders
for countermeasures) may be conducted under the authority of
section 1535 of title 31, United States Code, except that all
such orders shall be processed under the terms established
under this section for the procurement of countermeasures.''.

SEC. 9. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act,
shall be construed to affect any law that applies to the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program under title XXI
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-1 et seq.),
including such laws regarding--
(1) whether claims may be filed or compensation may be paid
for a vaccine-related injury or death under such Program;
(2) claims pending under such Program; and
(3) any petitions, cases, or other proceedings before the
United States Court of Federal Claims pursuant to such title.
______

By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself and Mr. Leahy):
S. 2565. A bill to designate certain National Forest System land in
the State of Vermont for inclusion in the National Wilderness
Preservation system and designate a National Recreation Area; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from
Vermont, Mr. Leahy, in introducing the Vermont Wilderness Act of 2006.
This legislation designates 48,051 acres within the Green Mountain
National Forest for management under the 1964 Wilderness Act.
The Green Mountain National Forest constitutes more than 400,000
acres of woodlands in central and southern Vermont. The Forest hosts up
to 3.4 million visitors each year and is capable of supporting a
variety of uses, from timber production to snowmobiling to hiking,
which contribute to Vermont's economy. The forest is also an important
wildlife habitat and source of clean, fresh water. If well managed, the
Green Mountain National Forest will remain one of Vermont's most
precious environmental treasures, while continuing to support our
state's economic and recreational needs for generations to come.
The National Forest Service is responsible for most aspects of
national forest management but Congress reserved the authority to set
aside undisturbed wilderness lands. Good stewardship of the forest
requires leadership, and now is the time for us to accept this
responsibility to designate additional wilderness areas.
Twenty-two years ago, as a member of the U.S. House of
Representatives, I joined my Senate colleagues, Mr. Stafford and Mr.
Leahy, to introduce the Vermont Wilderness Act of 1984. That act
designated 41,260 acres as wilderness. Since that time the Green
Mountain National Forest has acquired over 110,000 additional acres,
while the populations of the State and the region have increased. These
changing demands, and the changing landscape, provide the opportunity
and drive the need to designate additional land as wilderness.
The Vermont Wilderness Act of 1984 directed Congress to consider
additional wilderness designations in the Green Mountain National
Forest only after 15 years had elapsed and the management plan for the
Forest had been thoroughly reviewed. With last month's adoption of a
completely revised Land Resource Management Plan for the Green Mountain
National Forest, these conditions have been met and it is time to act.
I have worked for the past 6 years with the other members of
Vermont's Congressional delegation, the National Forest Service, and
State leaders. I have reviewed comments from thousands of constituents,
visited the forest on the ground and viewed it from the air, and spent
countless hours studying maps. These new designations are the result of
thorough analysis and thought, and we do not make them lightly.
Many Vermonters disagree with the need for any wilderness
designations, much less additional lands to be set aside at this time.
I understand their concerns, but I also recognize the intent of the
Wilderness Act of 1964, and I believe deeply in the benefits of
managing some areas so that forces of nature hold sway.
The Vermont Wilderness Act of 2006 designates two significant new
wilderness areas: the 28,491-acre Glastenbury wilderness in southern
Vermont, and the 12,437-acre Battell wilderness in central Vermont.
These are pristine, remote forest lands, and would remain undisturbed
for future generations.
The recently completed Land and Resource Management Plan for the
Green Mountain National Forest is a credit to everyone who worked on
it, and reflects the hard work of the U.S. National Forest Service.
This plan calls for additions to several existing wilderness areas
including Peru Peak, Big Branch, Breadloaf and Lye Brook. These
recommended additions are included in this legislation, with some
modification.
This legislation also calls for 16,890 acres of the Moosalamoo
Recreation Area in Central Vermont to be designated a national
recreation area. Moosalamoo exists today as a world-class destination
for widely diverse outdoor recreation activities on both public and
private land. Moosalamoo is managed cooperatively by a group of owners
and it attracts visitors from far and wide for hiking, camping, Nordic
and alpine skiing and other activities. From the Robert Frost
interpretive trails to the blueberry management areas and oak clad
escarpments, Moosalamoo is uniquely deserving of national recreation
area designation.
The Green Mountain National Forest is an important source of wood
products and the timber industry is critically important to Vermont's
economy. These wilderness and national recreation area designations are
not meant to interfere with a robust timber management program within
the forest, and I will work to support that program at every
opportunity.
As we introduce this legislation it is important to acknowledge the
fine work of Supervisor Paul Brewster and the staff of the Green
Mountain National Forest. They applied great skill and technical
expertise in developing the new management plan for the forest. The
same professionalism will certainly be applied to implement the plan.
Our wilderness designations differ somewhat from those proposed by the
Forest Service, which is the reason this authority is reserved for
Congress, but the new management plan has helped to inform and guide
our work.
It is with great pride that I join my colleagues to introduce the
Vermont Wilderness Act of 2006. Our great state has been blessed with a
beautiful natural landscape, which Vermonters have worked hard to
preserve. This bill will continue in that tradition by helping to
secure areas of the unspoiled wilderness that Vermont is known and
admired for.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I join with Senator Jeffords today to
introduce the Vermont Wilderness Act of 2006, to designate two new
wilderness areas and to make a number of additions to existing
wilderness areas in Vermont's Green Mountain National Forest. This
legislation will also designate a new National Recreation Area (NRA) in
the Green Mountain National Forest in the area commonly known as
Moosalamoo.
The U.S. Forest Service has recently released its Record of Decision
(ROD) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the revision
of

[[Page S3228]]

the Green Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.
This has been an effort encompassing several years, a lengthy process
including significant public involvement, and a great deal of difficult
and detailed work on the part of the Forest Service staff in Vermont
and our region.
I want to extend my appreciation and thanks to the staff of the Green
Mountain National Forest for their perseverance and professionalism
throughout the plan revision process. This has been by no means an easy
task, with Vermonters and other interested citizens who care deeply
about the National Forest weighing in with sincere and often
conflicting views on land, resource and forest management decisions.
While there is much of interest in such a comprehensive plan, the
primary role of the Congress lies with wilderness and other related
special designations, such as National Recreation Areas. The Vermont
Congressional Delegation has taken this responsibility seriously as we
have sought a compromise between those who would prefer significant
additions in wilderness areas and those who would prefer none. If this
recommendation were enacted, about a quarter of the current Green
Mountain National Forest would be designated as wilderness.
Just as the recently released Land and Resource Management Plan for
the Green Mountain National Forest has elicited abundant feedback
across the spectrum of interested citizens and organizations, we expect
our proposal to do the same. We offer this legislation as a good-faith
effort to find a middle ground, and once this proposal is referred to
the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry--of which
I am a member--we will welcome constructive comments and criticisms to
improve the bill. Since the Vermont Congressional Delegation has long
been on the public record in favor of additional wilderness
designations within the Green Mountain National Forest, comments that
are as specific as possible will be especially helpful in helping to
refine our proposal.
In specific terms, this legislation proposes a new wilderness area in
the Glastenbury Mountain area of approximately 28,500 acres. In the
Romance, Monastery and Worth Mountain areas the bill proposes adding
approximately 12,500 acres, which together would become the Battell
Wilderness in honor of Joseph Battell, who once owned some 9,000 acres
in this area and bequeathed thousands of acres to Middlebury College,
which eventually became the core of the north half of the Green
Mountain National Forest.
The bill also proposes designating approximately 4,200 acres for
addition to the existing Breadloaf Wilderness, 2,200 acres to the Lye
Brook Wilderness, 800 acres to the Peru Peak Wilderness, and 40 acres
to the Big Branch Wilderness. The proposed Moosalamoo National
Recreation Area covers approximately 17,000 acres.
This legislation does not include additional acreage for the George
D. Aiken Wilderness Area or the Bristol Cliffs Wilderness Area. It does
not propose a wilderness designation for the area known as Lamb Brook,
and it does not propose a new National Recreation Area in the Somerset
region.
Our legislation builds on the recommendations of the Forest Service.
In many areas the Delegation bill closely tracks the Forest Service
plan--Breadloaf, Big Branch and Peru Peak areas are nearly identical.
In the Glastenbury area, the Forest Service added more than 8,000 acres
to their original plan, and we have further increased the acreage of a
proposed Glastenbury Wilderness Area. In addition, this legislation
adds about 2,000 acres to the Lye Brook Wilderness, above the Forest
Service recommendation. Finally, we are proposing the new Battell
Wilderness Area, which encompasses lands the Forest Service included in
a Remote Backcountry management category, which is essentially managed
as a wilderness area.
In the Moosalamoo area, this legislation codifies the Moosalamoo
National Recreation Area, which has the strong support of the various
communities and local partners in the area. We believe this designation
best represents the actual goals of the various stakeholders and merits
this national designation. Furthermore, we have included the Forest
Service's Escarpment management category in the designated area and
have also included previously agreed upon management guidelines in the
bill.
I would offer the following thoughts which we have returned to on
those numerous occasions over recent years whenever this subject has
been brought up for discussion in our State.
In sponsoring this legislation today, the Vermont Congressional
Delegation is demonstrating our commitment to additional wilderness
designations on the Green Mountain National Forest. The Green Mountain
National Forest is the largest contiguous public land area in Vermont
and within a days drive for over 70 million people. We are committed to
protecting some National Forest lands for future generations under the
National Wilderness Preservation System.
Our proposals have not been driven by acreage quotas, but rather by
data supplied by the Forest Service and by interested Vermonters.
Therefore, what is too much for some will be too little for others.
The timing of this introduction was conditioned so as to allow the
Forest Service process to reach its conclusion and, at the same time,
to enable Vermonters and other interested parties to review both the
Forest Service and the Delegation recommendations. Throughout our
deliberations, we have appreciated the help of the Forest Service staff
and have recognized their commitment to their planning regulations,
guidelines and timetable. We invite all Vermonters to join us in
thanking the Forest Service staff for all the hard work in their
planning effort.
While this legislation proposes to add significant wilderness to the
Green Mountain National Forest, it bears noting that most of the lands
designated in this bill are not suitable for timber harvesting. This
legislation would retain many thousands of acres available for timber
harvesting which will have to be managed in a fair, open and
professional manner. We are committed to the development of such a
process and we know the Forest Service shares this commitment. We
invite all interested parties to join in this effort. It is our hope
that given the superior manner in which the Forest Service conducted
the Forest Plan Revision process, unnecessary appeals and litigation of
the plan and future management activities can be avoided.
The Green Mountain National Forest has expanded since the last
wilderness designations were made. As Senator Stafford, then
Congressman Jeffords and I remember, during the consideration of the
last Vermont Wilderness bill in 1984 there were many perspectives on
the use of our National Forest. We assume there will be again this
time. As we were 1984, we remain committed to carrying on the strong
conservation legacy that generations of Vermonters, like Senator Robert
Stafford, have fostered over the decades.
We urge anyone who is interested in the Green Mountain National
Forest to review the whole Plan, as the Forest Service has recommended,
and to look beyond their own primary areas of concern so that we can
all do what we can to help implement the Plan.
In closing, I would note that the Delegation knows that you cannot
undertake every possible use on every acre of National Forest land, and
we believe most Vermonters support our approach to this issue. In
recognition of this fact, we are introducing this legislation as a
vision for the Green Mountain Forest for this and future generations.
______

By Mr. LUGAR (for himself and Mr. Obama):
S. 2566. A bill to provide for coordination of proliferation
interdiction activities and conventional arms disarmament, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Cooperative
Proliferation Detection, Interdiction Assistance, and Conventional
Threat Reduction Act of 2006. This bill is based upon the legislation
that Senator Obama and I introduced last year by the same name. Over
the last six months we have worked closely with the Administration and
the Department of State on legislation to improve U.S. programs focused
on conventional weapons dismantlement and counter-proliferation
assistance more effective and efficient.
The Lugar-Obama bill launches two major weapons dismantlement and

[[Page S3229]]

counterproliferation initiatives. Modeled after the Nunn-Lugar program,
which dismantles weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union
and beyond, our legislation seeks to build cooperative relationships
with willing countries to secure vulnerable stockpiles of conventional
weapons and strengthen barriers against WMD falling into terrorist's
hands.
The first part of our legislation energizes U.S. programs to
dismantle MANPADS and large stockpiles of other conventional weapons,
including tactical missile systems. There may be as many as 750,000
MANPADS in arsenals worldwide. The State Department estimates that more
than 40 civilian aircraft have been hit by such weapons since the
1970's. In addition loose stocks of small arms and other weapons help
fuel civil wars and provide ammunition for those who attack
peacekeepers and aid workers seeking to help war-torn societies. Our
bill would enhance U.S. capability to safely destroy munitions like
those used in the improvised roadside bombs that have proved so deadly
to U.S. forces in Iraq.
In August Senator Obama and I traveled to Ukraine and saw stacks of
thousands of mortars and other weapons, left over from the Soviet era.
The scene there is similar to situations in other states of the former
Soviet Union, Africa, Latin America, and Asia. In many cases, the
security around these weapons is minimal. Every stockpile represents a
theft opportunity for terrorists and a temptation for security
personnel who might seek to profit by selling weapons on the black
market. The more stockpiles that can be safeguarded or eliminated, the
safer we will be. We do not want the question posed the day after an
attack on an American military base, embassy compound, or commercial
plane why we didn't do more to address these threats.
Some foreign governments have already sought U.S. help in eliminating
their stocks of lightweight antiaircraft missiles and excess weapons
and ammunition. But low budgets and insufficient attention have
hampered destruction efforts. Our legislation would require the
Administration to develop a response commensurate with the threat, by
requiring better coordination and a three-fold increase in spending in
this area, to $25 million--a relatively modest sum that would offer
large benefits to U.S. security.
The other part of the Lugar-Obama legislation would strengthen the
ability of America's friends and allies to detect and intercept illegal
shipments of weapons and materials of mass destruction. Stopping these
weapons and materials of mass destruction in transit is an important
complement to the Nunn-Lugar program, which aims to eliminate weapons
of mass destruction at their source.
We cannot do this alone. We need the vigilance of like-minded
nations. The Proliferation Security Initiative has been successful in
enlisting the help of other countries, but many of our partners lack
the capability to detect and interdict hidden weapons. Lugar-Obama
seeks to address this gap by providing $50 million to establish a
coordinated effort to improve the capabilities of foreign partners by
providing equipment, logistics, training and other support. Examples of
such assistance may include maritime surveillance and boarding
equipment, aerial detection and interdiction capabilities, enhanced
port security, and the provision of hand-held detection equipment and
passive WMD sensors.
On February 9 the Committee on Foreign Relations held a hearing to
examine the State Department's efforts in these important areas. In
response to a question on how important conventional weapons
elimination and counter-proliferation is to U.S. security Under
Secretary Joseph stated that ``other than stopping weapons of mass
destruction (at their source), I personally do not think that there is
. . . a higher priority.'' The Under Secretary also pointed out that
with more resources he was confident additional progress could be
achieved faster.
We have worked closely with Secretary Rice and her staff to improve
this legislation. The bill has been modified in a number of ways to
improve its effectiveness and to provide the Department with the
authority necessary to carry out important nonproliferation and
counter-proliferation missions. At the Department's request, we provide
authorization for the entire Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining,
and Related Programs account. We also authorize international ship-
boarding agreements under the Proliferation Security Initiative, the
use of the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund outside the former
Soviet Union, and the use of funds for administrative purposes. In
addition, we provide the Secretary with the authority to make a
reprogramming request to use the funds required under this legislation
for other nonproliferation and counter-proliferation activities in an
emergency.
Earlier this week, Secretary Rice appeared before the Committee on
Foreign Relations. I took the opportunity to ask her opinion of Lugar-
Obama. She stated her personal support and that of the Department and
the Administration. I am pleased that efforts to craft this important
effort not only have bipartisan Congressional support but the support
of the Administration as well.
The U.S. response to conventional weapons threats and the lack of
focus on WMD detection and interdiction assistance must be rectified if
we are to provide a full and complete defense for the American people.
Senator Obama and I understand that the United States cannot meet every
conceivable security threat everywhere in the world. But filling the
security gaps that we have described and that Secretary Rice and Under
Secretary Joseph have confirmed, should be near the top of our list of
priorities. We do not believe these problems have received adequate
resources and look forward to working with our colleagues in the Senate
to rectify the situation.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, Senator Lugar has already outlined the
legislation that we are reintroducing here today and the process that
has led us to this point, so I will be brief.
I don't want my brevity to be confused with indifference towards this
legislation. I want to underscore the importance of this bill in
establishing a broad framework to more effectively combat the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and heavy conventional
weapons. As I have said before, these are two critical issues that
directly impact the security of the United States.
In some ways, the bill has already had its desired impact. There was
a reorganization of the State Department that will improve the
Department's ability to deal with the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and heavy conventional weapons. Moreover, the legislation
has focused additional high-level attention--the scarcest commodity in
Washington--on these Issues.
However, there is more that needs to be done. I believe the Senate
can and should move this bill in an expeditious fashion. We have
already held a hearing on the bill, worked with the State Department to
update and improve the legislation, and have received endorsements from
an array of non-governmental organizations that follow these issues.
I will defer to the Chairman on the procedural issues, but my hope is
that we can report this bill out of the Foreign Relations Committee as
soon as possible and work for Senate passage shortly thereafter.
In closing, I want to thank Senator Lugar for his steadfast
commitment to these critical issues and look forward to collaborating
with him in the coming months on this legislation.
______

By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein):
S. 2567. A bill to maintain the rural heritage of the Eastern Sierra
and enhance the region's tourism economy by designating certain public
lands as wilderness and certain rivers as wild and scenic rivers in the
State of California, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing ``the Eastern
Sierra Rural Heritage and Economic Enhancement Act,'' a bill that will
provide protection for thousands of some of the most pristine, wild,
and beautiful acres in California. I am glad to be joined in this
effort by my colleague, Senator Feinstein. Representative McKeon, whose
congressional districts contains these special lands, introduced
companion legislation today in the House of Representatives.

[[Page S3230]]

My bill will protect three very special California treasures in the
Eastern Sierra. It makes considerable additions to existing Hoover
Wilderness areas, which border on Yosemite National Park. These
additions will protect the stunning High Sierra landscape of 11,000
foot snow-capped peaks and valleys, lush meadows and deep forests that
people around the world associate with the Eastern Sierra.
These areas are also home to an abundance of wildlife, including
black bear, mountain lion, mule deer, waterfowl, and bald eagles.
This land provides more than just visual beauty, however--it is also
a recreational paradise. Year after year, hikers enjoy the
approximately nine miles of the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail
that runs through this wilderness, and anglers enjoy the clear lakes
and streams that support a number of species of wild trout. The bill
will also protect areas adjacent to the Emigrant Wilderness area,
including another two miles of the Pacific Crest Trail.
My legislation will also designate about 24 miles of the Amargosa
River as a Wild and Scenic River. As the only river flowing into Death
Valley, the Amargosa is an ecologically-important river in a dry desert
area. Birds--and birdwatchers--abound in this area, both coming from
far and wide to enjoy the river area.
In short, these areas are not just California's natural treasures--
they are America's natural treasures. And that is why they deserve the
highest level of protection possible. That is what this bill does.
I was proud to include most of these lands in my California Wild
Heritage Act that I reintroduced last month. And I look forward to
working with Senator Feinstein and Representative McKeon, and all my
colleagues, to protect these special places forever.
______

By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Allen, Ms.
Mikulski, Mr. Biden, and Mr. Carper):
S. 2568. A bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate
the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation,
together with Senators Warner, Allen, Mikulski, Biden and Carper to
designate the route of Captain John Smith's exploration of the
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries as a National Historic Trail. The
proposed Trail is of great historical importance to all Americans in
that it represents the beginning of our Nation's story.
Next year our Nation will commemorate the 400th anniversary of the
founding of Jamestown and the beginning of John Smith's momentous
explorations of the Chesapeake Bay. In April 1607, three ships, the
Susan Constant, the Godspeed, and the Discovery, arrived at the mouth
of the Chesapeake Bay after a four-month voyage from England carrying
the colonists who would establish the first permanent English
settlement in North America and plant the seeds of our nation and our
democracy. Under the leadership of Captain John Smith, the fledgling
colony not only survived, but helped ignite a new era of discovery in
the New World sparked by reports of Smith's voyages around the
Chesapeake Bay.
John Smith's explorations in the small, 30 foot shallop totaled some
three thousand miles, reaching from present-day Jamestown, Virginia, to
Smiths Falls on the Pennsylvania border with Maryland and from Broad
Creek, in Delaware to the Potomac River and Washington, DC. His
journeys brought the English into contact with many Native American
tribes for the first time, and his observations of the region's people
and its natural wonders are still relied upon by anthropologists,
historians, and ecologists to this day.
Chief Justice John Marshall wrote of the significance of Smith's
explorations. ``When we contemplate the dangers, and the hardships he
encountered, and the fortitude, courage and patience with which he met
them; when we reflect on the useful and important additions which he
made to the stock of knowledge respecting America, then possessed by
his countrymen; we shall not hesitate to say that few voyages of
discovery, undertaken at any time, reflect more honour on those engaged
in them, than this does on Captain Smith.''
What better way to commemorate this important part of our Nation's
history and honor John Smith's courageous voyages than by designating
the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail? The Congress
established the National Trails System ``to provide for the ever-
increasing outdoor recreation needs of an expanding population and in
order to promote the preservation of, public access to, travel within,
and enjoyment and appreciation of the open-air, outdoor areas and
historic resources of the Nation.'' National Historic Trails such as
the Lewis and Clark Trail, the Pony Express Trail, the Trail of Tears,
and the Selma to Montgomery Trail were authorized as part of this
System to identify and protect historic routes for public use and
enjoyment and to commemorate major events which shaped American
history. In my judgment, the proposed Captain John Smith Chesapeake
National Historic Trail is a fitting addition to the 13 National
Historic Trails administered by the National Park Service.
Pursuant to legislation we enacted as part of the Fiscal 2006
Interior Appropriations Act authorizing the National Park Service to
study the feasibility of so designating this trail, on March 21, 2006
the National Park System Advisory Board concluded that the proposed
trail is ``nationally significant'' as a milestone for the English
exploration of North America, contact between the English and the
Native American tribes of the region, and in commerce and trade in
North America. This finding is one of the principal criteria for
qualifying as a National Historic Trail. Well documented by the
remarkably accurate maps and charts that Smith made of his voyages, the
trail also offers tremendous opportunities for public recreation and
historic interpretation and appreciation. Similar in historic
importance to the Lewis and Clark National Trail, this new historic
water trail will inspire generations of Americans and visitors to
follow Smith's journeys, to learn about the roots of our Nation and to
better understand the contributions of the Native Americans who lived
within the Bay region. It would also help highlight the Chesapeake
Bay's remarkable maritime history, the diversity of its peoples, its
historical settlements and our current efforts to restore and sustain
the world's most productive estuary.
As Jamestown's 400th anniversary quickly approaches, designating the
Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail will bring
history to life. It would serve to educate visitors about the new
colony at Jamestown, John Smith's journeys, the history of 17th century
Chesapeake region, and the vital importance of the Native Americans
that inhabited the Bay area. It would provide new opportunities for
recreation and heritage tourism not only for more than 16 millions
Americans living in the Chesapeake Bay's watershed, but for visitors to
this area throughout the country and abroad.
This legislation enjoys strong bipartisan support in the Congress and
in the States through which the trail passes. The trail proposal has
been endorsed by the Governors of Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware and
Maryland and numerous local governments throughout the Chesapeake Bay
region. The measure is also strongly supported by the National
Geographic Society, The Conservation Fund, The Garden Club of America,
the Izaak Walton League of America, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and
the Chesapeake Bay Commission as well as scores of businesses, tourism
leaders, private groups, and intergovernmental bodies.
The Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail Act comes
at a very timely juncture to educate Americans about historical events
that occurred 400 years ago right here in Chesapeake Bay, which were so
crucial to the formation of this great country and our democracy. I
urge my colleagues to support this measure.
______

By Mr. HATCH:
S. 2569. A bill to authorize Western States to make selections of
public land within their borders in lieu of receiving five per centum
of the proceeds of the sale of public land lying within

[[Page S3231]]

said States as provided by their respective Enabling Acts; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would
restore balance to a system that disadvantages education funding in the
West. The Action Plan for Public Land and Education Act of 2006 would
authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of
Agriculture to grant Federal land to western States where large
proportions of public land hamper the States ability to raise funding
for public education. This is a product of the hard work and creativity
of Representative Rob Bishop, and I am working with him on this
important effort.
Many of my colleagues may not know this, but 10 of the top 12 States
with the largest student-teacher ratios are in the West. These States
also have the lowest growth in per-pupil expenditures, and their
enrollment growth is projected to increase dramatically.
The West's education funding deficit is not due to lack of commitment
or effort by the States. The fact is that Western States allocate as
great a percentage of their budgets to public education as the rest of
the Nation. Moreover, Western States pay on average 11.1 percent of
their personal incomes to State and local taxes, whereas citizens of
the remaining States pay 10.9 percent of their incomes to these same
State and local taxes.
The funding discrepancy for education in the West is due in large
part to the lack of a sales tax base, which can only be generated on
private land. On average, the Federal Government owns 52 percent of the
land located in the 13 Western States, while the remaining States
average just 4 percent Federal land. Sales tax is not collected on
Federal land, and as we know, public education is funded largely
through sales taxes.
We all know, the school trust lands that are available to these
States are not sufficient to make up the education shortfall in the
West. This legislation would remedy that by granting public land States
5 percent of federally-owned land within the State boundaries. The land
would be held in trust to be sold or leased, and the proceeds used
strictly for the support of public education.
Again, I thank Representative Bishop for his excellent work on this
bill. My colleagues and I know of the need to address the West's
education funding problem. The Action Plan for Public Land and
Education Act of 2006 is a solution to this problem, and I urge my
colleagues to lend their support for this important proposal.
______

By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Kyl, and Mr.
McCain):
S. 2570. A bill to authorize funds for the United States Marshals
Service's Fugitive Safe Surrender Program; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I join Senators Domenici, KYL, and
McCain to introduce a bill to support the Fugitive Safe Surrender
Program, which encourages those with outstanding arrest warrants to
turn themselves in peacefully. This program--conducted under the
auspices of the U.S. Marshal Service, with the cooperation of public,
private, nonprofit and faith-based partners--involves using a local
church or community center as a temporary courthouse, where fugitives
can turn themselves in and have their cases adjudicated.
This is not an amnesty program. Those who surrender are still held
accountable for the original charges. However, by moving the
prosecutors, public defenders, and judges to the new location, non-
violent cases can be resolved promptly on-site, in a setting where
fugitives feel they can safely turn themselves in.
In a pilot program implemented last August in Cleveland, over 800
people turned themselves in during a four day period, including 324 who
had outstanding felony warrants. Almost all the cases were adjudicated
on the day of the surrender. As means of comparison, the Fugitive Task
Force conducted a more traditional sweep for three days following the
implementation of the Fugitive Safe Surrender program, resulting in the
capture of 65 people with outstanding warrants. Clearly, the Fugitive
Safe Surrender program was a tremendous success, and I'd like to offer
my personal congratulations to Pete Elliott, the U.S. Marshal for the
Northern District of Ohio, and Dr. C. Jay Matthews, the Senior Pastor
of the Mt. Sinai Baptist Church in Cleveland, for their efforts in
heading up this successful endeavor. This type of innovation and
creative thinking is exactly what we need in the law enforcement
community, and it has obviously paid off in Cleveland.
The Fugitive Safe Surrender program has exceeded expectations and
demonstrated its value to the community. The logical next step is for
the U.S. Marshals to expand their initiative nationwide. They already
have been working with law enforcement, community, and church groups in
eight cities that have volunteered to be sites for Fugitive Safe
Surrender in 2006: Albuquerque, NM; Phoenix, AZ; Washington, DC;
Louisville, KY; Camden, NJ; Indianapolis, IN; Richmond, VA; and Akron,
OH. They are hoping to expand to even more cities in 2007 and 2008.
This expansion is worthy of federal support, and that is why I have
joined Senators Domenici, Kyl, and McCAIN in sponsoring the Fugitive
Safe Surrender Act of 2006, which authorizes $3 million for fiscal year
07, $5 million for fiscal year 08, and $8 million for fiscal year 09.
These funds will allow the U.S. Marshals Service to coordinate with the
Fugitive Safe Surrender sites around the country, also providing for
the cost of establishing secure courtrooms inside of a local church or
community center.
This is a good bill, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 2570

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

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) Fugitive Safe Surrender is a program of the United
States Marshals Service, in partnership with public, private,
and faith-based organizations, which temporarily transforms a
church into a courthouse, so fugitives can turn themselves
in, in an atmosphere where they feel more comfortable to do
so, and have nonviolent cases adjudicated immediately.
(2) In the 4-day pilot program in Cleveland, Ohio, over 800
fugitives turned themselves in. By contrast, a successful
Fugitive Task Force sweep, conducted for 3 days after
Fugitive Safe Surrender, resulted in the arrest of 65
individuals.
(3) Fugitive Safe Surrender is safer for defendants, law
enforcement, and innocent bystanders than needing to conduct
a sweep.
(4) Based upon the success of the pilot program, Fugitive
Safe Surrender should be expanded to other cities throughout
the United States.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION.

(a) In General.--The United States Marshals Service shall
establish, direct, and coordinate a program (to be known as
the ``Fugitive Safe Surrender Program''), under which the
United States Marshals Service shall apprehend Federal,
State, and local fugitives in a safe, secure, and peaceful
manner to be coordinated with law enforcement and community
leaders in designated cities throughout the United States.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the United States Marshals Service to
carry out this section--
(1) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
(2) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
(3) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
(c) Other Existing Applicable Law.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to limit any existing authority under any
other provision of Federal or State law for law enforcement
agencies to locate or apprehend fugitives through task forces
or any other means.
______

By Mr. CONRAD:
S. 2571. A bill to promote energy production and conservation, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a comprehensive
energy bill, one that I call Breaking Our Long-Term Dependency, or the
BOLD Energy Act.
As President Bush has stated, our Nation is addicted to oil. Our
economy requires over 20 million barrels of oil a day to fuel our cars,
our trucks, heat our homes, and bring goods to market all across the
country. Sixty percent of our consumption--60 percent--is from imports.
Many of these imports are coming from the most volatile parts of the
world, the most unstable parts of the world, and we have to take
serious steps now to reduce our growing dependency. That is what this
bill is all about.

[[Page S3232]]

This legislation, which is comprehensive in nature and which we have
worked on for over 6 months, I believe is a serious contribution to the
discussion. Let me make clear: These are not tepid steps. This
legislation is bold because that is what the situation requires if we
are to seriously reduce our dependence.
This legislation invests approximately $40 billion over the next 5
years to meaningfully reduce our dependence on foreign energy. Much of
our imported oil comes from unstable parts of the world. Forty-five
percent of our oil comes from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, and
Iraq. A major disruption to oil supplies in any of those areas could
send oil over $100 a barrel. Threats to oil supplies and surging demand
have contributed to a 95-percent increase in oil prices over the past 2
years.
Imported oil now accounts for $266 billion of our trade deficit. That
is more than a third of our total trade imbalance.
Our Nation faces other challenges on the energy front as well.
Fluctuating natural gas prices threaten the livelihood of our Nation's
farmers and manufacturers. Electricity sales are projected to increase
by 50 percent over the next 25 years. Transmission capacity constraints
prevent development of power production in many parts of the country,
including North Dakota.
Fortunately, the United States has the domestic resources and the
ingenuity to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and meet our energy
challenges. It is time, I believe, to look to the Midwest rather than
turning to the Middle East for our energy resources. We can turn to our
farm fields to produce more ethanol and biodiesel.
Brazil shows what can be done. Thirty years ago Brazil was 80 percent
dependent on foreign energy. They have reduced that dependence to less
than 10 percent. At the same time, our country has gone from 35-percent
dependence to now 60-percent dependence. We have been going the wrong
way. Brazil has demonstrated what can be done to dramatically reduce
one's energy dependence. How did they do it? They did it by aggressive
promotion of biodiesel, by aggressive promotion of ethanol, and by
creating a fleet of flexible fuel vehicles.
We could do that here. Brazilian officials are now predicting they
will be completely energy independent this year--this year. We can use
our abundant domestic reserve of coal to produce clean, clear fuel as
part of a plan to reduce our dependence, in addition to the use of
those renewables.
Coal-to-liquid fuel technology has tremendous potential. Converting
America's 273 billion tons of coal into transportation fuel would
result in the equivalent of over 500 billion barrels of oil. That
compares to Saudi Arabia's reserves of 262 billion barrels.
Why are we continuing to be dependent and vulnerable to foreign
sources of energy? It makes no sense. It is time to do more than talk
about the threat; it is time to act. That is why I am introducing the
BOLD Energy Act today.
My legislation would accomplish the following: It would increase
production of renewable energy and alternative fuels. It would reward
conservation and energy efficiency. It would provide more research and
development funding for new energy technologies. It would promote
responsible development of domestic fossil fuel resources, and it would
facilitate upgrades to our Nation's electricity grid.
First, the BOLD Act takes aggressive steps to increase alternative
fuel production and use. It extends the biodiesel and ethanol tax
credit. It requires ethanol use in the United States to increase from
4.7 billion gallons in 2007 to 30 billion gallons in 2025. It creates a
new biodiesel standard. It promotes alternative fueling stations, and
it establishes a $500 million grant program for the expensive front-end
engineering and design of coal-to-liquid fuel plants. These steps will
allow us to substitute home-grown fuels for foreign oil, dramatically
reducing our dependence on imported oil.
Second, the experts tell us the single most important thing we can do
to reduce our reliance on foreign oil is to improve the efficiency of
our cars and trucks. My legislation provides a new rebate program for
cars and trucks that achieve above-average fuel economy. The most fuel-
efficient vehicles would qualify for rebates of up to $2,500. This will
encourage consumers to buy, and manufacturers to produce, more fuel-
efficient cars. We don't do this with the command-and-control structure
of CAFE standards; we do it with incentives for the marketplace.
My bill also requires that all vehicles sold in the United States by
2017 must include alternative fuel technologies, such as hybrid
electric or flex-fuel systems. Auto makers will be eligible for a 35-
percent tax credit or retiree health care cost relief to make this
transition. We have had extensive discussions with the automobile
industry on how to design these incentives so they would be effective.
North Dakota E85 fueling systems will allow drivers to dramatically
reduce gasoline usage. And in urban areas such as Washington, D.C.
where most drivers commute fewer than 20 miles a day, new plug-in
hybrids will allow most trips to be fueled by electricity rather than
gasoline.
Third, the BOLD Energy Act promotes environmentally responsible
energy development here at home. It increases the existing enhanced oil
recovery tax credit to 20 percent for any new or expanded domestic
drilling project that uses carbon dioxide to recover oil from aging
wells. Again, we have consulted broadly with industry on what would be
the most effective incentives to seriously increase domestic energy
production.
It also includes language authorizing energy development in the Lease
Sale 181 area in the Gulf of Mexico that prohibits this development
from occurring within 100 miles of the Florida coast or interfering
with military activities in the gulf.
These steps will allow us to substitute American oil and natural gas
for imports, creating jobs here at home and improving our energy
security.
Fourth, my BOLD Energy Act promotes new technologies to improve
energy efficiency and develop renewable energy, such as wind and solar.
It extends the renewable energy tax credit for 5 years and establishes
a national 10-percent renewable electricity standard.
My energy bill also creates a clean coal energy bonds program to
allow electric cooperatives, tribal governments, and other public power
systems to finance new, advanced clean coal powerplants.
Finally, my legislation will improve the electricity grid in the
United States by making it easier for State governments to finance the
construction of transmission lines through the issuance of tax exempt
bonds. Again, we have consulted broadly with industry over an extended
period to find the things that would make the greatest difference to
dramatically reducing our energy dependence. That is what this
legislation is about. That is why I call it the BOLD Energy Act. It is
seriously designed to break our long-term dependency. That is why we
called it the BOLD Energy Act.
A few weeks ago I met with the President and a bipartisan group of
Senators at the White House to talk about energy policy. I told the
President he was right to identify our addiction to oil as one of our
challenges. I also told him it is time to be bold. No more tepid plans,
no more plans that fundamentally do not make a difference. It is time
for the United States to stand up to this challenge of seriously
reducing our dependence on foreign energy.
Make no mistake, this is a bold plan. This plan calls for the
investment of approximately $40 billion over the next 5 years. That is
what it is going to take. If we are going to be serious about reducing
our dependence, it is going to take more than half steps. It is time to
put politics aside and assemble our best collective ideas into a new,
comprehensive energy policy. I ask my colleagues and I urge them to
look at this bill, to examine it. I urge them and hope that they could
cosponsor it. If not, I welcome their constructive criticism about what
could be done to make it better.
I don't think we have any time to waste. There is no time to lose. We
need bold action. We need this BOLD Energy Act.
I send the bill to the desk for its assignment to the appropriate
committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be received and assigned to the
appropriate committee.

[[Page S3233]]

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank very much the dozens of
organizations that have contributed to writing this legislation. As I
have indicated, we have spent 6 months in preparing this legislation.
We have consulted with literally dozens and dozens of organizations
across this country. We have consulted with Members in both the House
and the Senate. We have consulted with Governors. We have consulted
with every relevant energy group in the State of North Dakota and in
the Midwest. I am delighted that so many of them have already endorsed
this legislation.
It is time for us to get serious about reducing our dependence on
foreign oil. I am delighted today to be presenting this BOLD Energy
Act. I believe it is the direction we should take. I again ask my
colleagues to give it their close consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from North
Dakota for thinking boldly and focusing on an urgent need for our
country. I look forward to studying his proposal and working with him,
especially in the areas of conservation and efficiency. There is a
consensus within the Energy and Natural Resources Committee that we can
do more in conservation and efficiency. There is a consensus in the
Senate, I believe, that we could do more in research and development.
There is a consensus that we could do more in renewable fuels. So I
look forward to looking at what he has to say.
I think our goal should be within a generation to end our dependence
on foreign oil. That wouldn't mean we wouldn't buy oil from Mexico or
from Canada or from anyone, really, but it would mean that no other
country could hold the United States of America hostage to the oil
supply.
That is a very constructive suggestion. There is one yellow flag I
would wave a little bit, and we can talk about it as it makes its way
through the process. The Senator mentioned wind power. In terms of the
transportation sector, unless we begin to put these large, giant wind
machines on the cars--which I fully expect someone to propose before
very long, with a large subsidy--I think we ought to examine carefully
just how much money we are already spending on giant windmills because
it is a massive tax ripoff to the taxpayers of the United States.
The last figures I saw showed that we were now, over the next 5
years, about to spend $3 billion supporting these giant wind machines,
which are twice as tall as the football stadium at the University of
Tennessee and extend from 10-yard line to 10-yard line and only work
when the wind is blowing. They deface the landscape of America.
The Senator has suggested a comprehensive policy that sounds very
attractive to me, but I would like us to examine carefully, as we go
through this, whether it is wise, for example, to extend the renewable
tax credit another 2 years because that is just code words for more
billions of dollars to the wind industry. They have a very good lobby.
They are very effective. But there are other forms of alternative
energy, especially regarding fuels, which is what we are talking about
when we are trying to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. That is
where we use most of our oil, in the transportation sector. I hope we
will spend our available money on research and development, as the
Senator has suggested, on conservation and efficiency, as the Senator
suggested, and on other kinds of fuels--biodiesel, as the Senator
suggested--and be very cautious about adding to the wind subsidy before
we clearly understand what we are doing.
Perhaps the figures aren't right, but the last figures I saw from the
Department of Treasury is that the Congress has now authorized $3
billion for giant wind machines. We don't need a national windmill
policy; we need a national energy policy.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, might I get the attention of the Senator
for just a moment? I say to him, first of all, I appreciate very much
his thoughtful remarks, as always. When you have a chance to look at
this, this is a comprehensive bill. We have spent months talking to
everyone we thought had a good idea. We have talked to people who
sponsored legislation in the House and the Senate, trying to cull those
legislative offerings for the best ideas. We have talked to the people
who were sponsored by Hewlett-Packard to do a review of national energy
policy in America.
As you know, they spent several years in a serious effort to come to
grips with what we could do that would dramatically reduce our energy
dependence. The Senator is quite right. That is why so much of this
legislation is focused on fuels; that is where a significant part of
our imported energy is going--to fuel the fleets of our country.
Let me say with respect to wind energy, I truly believe that is a
component of a comprehensive bill. Let me put it in perspective. In
terms of our legislation, it is a very small part because I think that
is the appropriate level of commitment to make in terms of
comprehensive energy policy. There are many other things that have much
more prominence in terms of where the investment is being made. I would
say to my colleague, in North Dakota we have extraordinary wind energy
capacity. We have the ability to relieve our dependence on coal-fired
plants and our dependence on plants that are fueled by natural gas, and
we have extreme problems, long term, with natural gas in this country.
That is why natural gas prices have had such a runup.
Wind energy is a great part of an overall plan to reduce peaking
load. Obviously, you cannot count on the wind blowing--although in
North Dakota you almost always can. So you have to marry it with other
energy-generating sources. That is what we have done with this
legislation. I very much welcome my colleague's kind comments, and I
look forward to his consideration of what we have tried to do.
Let me just say, I gave my staff an assignment 6 months ago. I told
them I wanted an energy bill that anybody could look at and objectively
say: If this were enacted, it would make a serious contribution to
reducing our energy dependence. I have supported the past energy bills
that have come through here. I was pleased to do so. But I think we all
know none of them make a dramatic change in our long-term dependence.
That is what this bill is designed to do, I say to my colleague: make a
dramatic reduction in our dependence.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I appreciate the spirit of the
Senator's remarks. He has presented this the same way he dealt with the
budget issues. He and Senator Gregg did a very good job with that and
helped the Senate through a difficult area. The last energy bill, the
one in July, was a very good bill because it began to shift our policy
toward producing large amounts of low-carbon and no-carbon energy. It
takes a while to do that. It is like turning a big ship around. But we
are already beginning to see the results.
There was more conservation and efficiency in that than we had
before, which avoids building new natural gas plants, for example. But
we could do much more.
There was significant support for nuclear power, which we should do
more of. All those who want to solve global warming in a generation
should be helping to support nuclear power because 70 percent of our
carbon-free energy in the United States today comes from nuclear power.
Seventy percent of the carbon-free electricity that we produce comes
from nuclear power. There is a growing consensus that we should begin
to proceed with that in the United States, and even help India and
China avoid dirty coal plants that pollute the area. If we want clean
air and low-cost power that is reliable, the approach toward nuclear
power is important. That was in the bill.
I encourage steps towards clean coal, which would be coal
gasification, which would limit the amount of nitrogen and sulphur and
mercury that would come from the use of coal--we have a lot of coal in
the United States--and research for carbon sequestration. If we could
recapture the carbon, we could then use coal for large amounts of clean
power.
Then we had significant support for renewable energy, for ethanol.
The President has now suggested that we extend that to different kinds
of ethanol. I am sure there are appropriate places for wind power, but
it doesn't

[[Page S3234]]

amount to much. It is not very reliable. And there is no excuse for
spending $3 billion over the next 5 years on gigantic windmills that
give big subsidies to investors and scar the landscape when we could be
spending it on conservation and efficiency. Of course, what I hope,
finally, and in pursuit of Senator Conrad's goal, is that we redouble
our interest in the hydrogen fuel cell economy. Major manufacturers are
telling me they are investing hundreds of millions of dollars each year
in hydrogen fuel cells which will have no emissions except water, and
one major manufacturer said to me that his company, one of the largest
in the world, would have a commercially available car on the market
within 10 years, and that was last year. That seems soon to me. But the
sooner that happens--the sooner that happens, the better.
To reduce our dependence on foreign oil so that we are not held
hostage, and to make sure that we have clean air and to make sure that
we do our part not to add to global warming, we should do all these
things. We do not need a national windmill policy. We need a
comprehensive energy policy.
I see the Senator from Massachusetts.
We would have to put enough giant windmills to cover 70 percent of
Massachusetts to equal the amount of energy in the oil we would get
from ANWR.
My main purpose is to say to Senator Conrad that I welcome his
proposal. It is a serious, thoughtful effort, as is characteristic of
his efforts.
I wish to ask that we carefully consider where the tax subsidies go
before we spend more billions of dollars on a source that is already
oversubsidized, that scars the landscape, that only works when the wind
blows, that requires large new power lines to be built and that can
fend for its own in marketplaces where it is appropriate to be.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
______

By Mr. BURNS (for himself and Mr. Rockefeller):
S. 2572. A bill to amend the Aviation and Transportation Security Act
to extend the suspended service ticket honor requirement; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce the
Aviation Consumer Protection Extension Act. The bill is a 1-year
extension of section 145 of the Aviation and Transportation Security
Act, which passed in 2001. The current extension expires in November of
this year.
Currently, the aviation industry is going through a difficult time
with numerous airline bankruptcies and overall uncertainty. In this
environment, airline consumers deserve protection in the circumstance
that their air service provider suspends service because of a
bankruptcy.
This extension provides that airline passengers holding tickets from
a bankrupt carrier are entitled to a seat on a standby basis on any
airline serving that route if arrangements are made within 60 days
after the bankrupt airline suspends operations.
Under the provision, the maximum fee that an airline can charge for
providing standby transportation would not exceed $50 each way. The
extension does not apply to charter flights but does cover frequent
flyer tickets.
Like all Members of this body, my State of Montana has a number of
traveling families. In the unfortunate circumstance that an air carrier
discontinues service, those families should not have to foot an
outrageous bill to get back home.
In these times of unease and uncertainty in the airline industry, we
need to make sure hard-earned family vacations don't turn into
unnecessarily costly expenditures. I look forward to working with my
colleagues on a timely passage of this important extension.
______

By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 2573. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide
interest rate reductions, to authorize and appropriate amounts for the
Federal Pell Grant program, to allow for in-school consolidation, to
provide the administrative account for the Federal Direct Loan Program
as a mandatory program, to strike the single holder rule, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 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. 2573

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 ``Reverse the Raid on Student
Aid Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. INTEREST RATE REDUCTIONS.

(a) FFEL Interest Rates.--Section 427A(l) (20 U.S.C.
1077a(l)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``6.8 percent'' and inserting ``3.4
percent''; and
(B) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, except that for any loan made pursuant to
section 428H for which the first disbursement is made on or
after July 1, 2006, the applicable rate of interest shall be
6.8 percent on the unpaid principal balance of the loan'';
and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``8.5 percent'' and
inserting ``4.25 percent''.
(b) Direct Loans.--Section 455(b)(7) (20 U.S.C.
1087e(b)(7)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) by striking ``and Federal Direct Unsubsidized Stafford
Loans'';
(B) by striking ``6.8 percent'' and inserting ``3.4
percent''; and
(C) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, and for any Federal Direct Unsubsidized
Stafford Loan made for which the first disbursement is made
on or after July 1, 2006, the applicable rate of interest
shall be 6.8 percent on the unpaid principal balance of the
loan''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``7.9 percent'' and
inserting ``4.25 percent''.

SEC. 3. FEDERAL PELL GRANT AWARDS.

Section 401 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1070a) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking clauses (i) through
(v) and inserting the following:
``(i) $4,500 for academic year 2007-2008;
``(ii) $4,800 for academic year 2008-2009;
``(iii) $5,200 for academic year 2009-2010;
``(iv) $5,600 for academic year 2010-2011; and
``(v) $6,000 for academic year 2011-2012,'';
(B) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking ``an appropriation
Act'' and inserting ``this section''; and
(C) in paragraph (7), by striking ``the appropriate
Appropriation Act for this subpart'' and inserting ``this
section'';
(2) by striking subsection (g);
(3) by redesignating subsections (h), (i), and (j), as
subsections (g), (h), and (i), respectively; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(j) Authorization and Appropriation of Funds.--There are
authorized to be appropriated, and there are appropriated, to
carry out this section--
``(1) for academic year 2007-2008, such sums as may be
necessary to award each student eligible for a Federal Pell
Grant for such academic year not more than $4,500;
``(2) for academic year 2008-2009, such sums as may be
necessary to award each student eligible for a Federal Pell
Grant for such academic year not more than $4,800;
``(3) for academic year 2009-2010, such sums as may be
necessary to award each student eligible for a Federal Pell
Grant for such academic year not more than $5,200;
``(4) for academic year 2010-2011, such sums as may be
necessary to award each student eligible for a Federal Pell
Grant for such academic year not more than $5,600;
``(5) for academic year 2011-2012, such sums as may be
necessary to award each student eligible for a Federal Pell
Grant for such academic year not more than $6,000; and
``(6) for each subsequent academic year, such sums as may
be necessary to award each student eligible for a Federal
Pell Grant for such subsequent academic year not more than
the amount that is equal to the maximum award amount for the
previous academic year increased by a percentage equal to the
estimated percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (as
determined by the Secretary) between such previous academic
year and such subsequent academic year.''.

SEC. 4. IN-SCHOOL CONSOLIDATION.

Section 428(b)(7)(A) of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1078(b)(7)(A)) is amended by striking ``shall
begin'' and all that follows through the period and inserting
``shall begin--
``(i) the day after 6 months after the date the student
ceases to carry at least one-half the normal full-time
academic workload (as determined by the institution); or
``(ii) on an earlier date if the borrower requests and is
granted a repayment schedule that provides for repayment to
commence at an earlier date.''.

SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE ACCOUNT FOR DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM.

Section 458 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1087h) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 458. FUNDS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

``(a) Administrative Expenses.--
``(1) In general.--Each fiscal year there shall be
available to the Secretary, from funds not otherwise
appropriated, funds to be obligated for--

[[Page S3235]]

``(A) administrative costs under this part and part B,
including the costs of the direct student loan programs under
this part; and
``(B) account maintenance fees payable to guaranty agencies
under part B and calculated in accordance with subsection
(b),

not to exceed (from such funds not otherwise appropriated)
$904,000,000 in fiscal year 2007, $943,000,000 in fiscal year
2008, $983,000,000 in fiscal year 2009, $1,023,000,000 in
fiscal year 2010, $1,064,000,000 in fiscal year 2011, and
$1,106,000,000 in fiscal year 2012.
``(2) Account maintenance fees.--Account maintenance fees
under paragraph (1)(B) shall be paid quarterly and deposited
in the Agency Operating Fund established under section 422B.
``(3) Carryover.--The Secretary may carry over funds made
available under this section to a subsequent fiscal year.
``(b) Calculation Basis.--Account maintenance fees payable
to guaranty agencies under subsection (a)(1)(B) shall not
exceed the basis of 0.10 percent of the original principal
amount of outstanding loans on which insurance was issued
under part B.
``(c) Budget Justification.--No funds may be expended under
this section unless the Secretary includes in the Department
of Education's annual budget justification to Congress a
detailed description of the specific activities for which the
funds made available by this section have been used in the
prior and current years (if applicable), the activities and
costs planned for the budget year, and the projection of
activities and costs for each remaining year for which
administrative expenses under this section are made
available.''.

SEC. 6. SINGLE HOLDER RULE.

Subparagraph (A) of section 428C(b)(1) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1078-3(b)(1)) is amended by
striking ``and (i)'' and all that follows through ``so
selected for consolidation)''.
______

By Mr. SALAZAR:
S. 2584. A bill to amend the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003
to help reduce the increased risk of severe wildfires to communities in
forested areas affected by infestations of bark beetles and other
insects, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about S. 2584,
``The Rocky Mountain Forest Insects Response Enhancement and Support
Act,'' or ``Rocky Mountain FIRES Act,'' which I introduced earlier
today.
I am introducing this bill because we are facing an extremely
dangerous wildfire situation in the West, including my home State of
Colorado, maybe worse than we have ever faced.
Below-average snowfalls, protracted drought, and a massive bark
beetle infestation have created fuel loads that threaten forest health,
property, and human life. I fear that we are facing a perfect storm of
conditions for devastating fires this summer in Colorado.
The southern half of Colorado, and much of the Southwest, has been
hit by yet another year of below-average precipitation. With the
exception of a few areas in Colorado's northern mountains,
precipitation levels this winter were 25-50 percent of average.
Colorado is now in its 7th consecutive year of drought.
This drought has been so severe and so long that even the healthiest
trees have become fuel for disease, fire, and insect infestations.
Mr. President, the bark beetle, a pest that normally kills only a few
weak trees in a stand, has fed off entire forests of drought-weakened
trees. It is a plague that is sweeping through the Rockies.
The bark beetle problem in Colorado is of unprecedented magnitude.
The infestation is killing trees over hundreds of thousands of acres,
leaving huge, dry fuel loads in its wake.
Across the State, but particularly in the Arapaho National Forest in
northern Colorado, bark beetles are turning entire forests into brown,
dead stands. In 2004, bark beetles killed an estimated 7 million trees
over 1.5 million acres in Colorado.
When you see pictures that show the stands that have been hit by the
bark beetle, you can see why people who live nearby are so concerned.
You can imagine what a fire would look like if it got into a stand of
beetle-infested timber--it would jump from crown to crown, racing up
ridges and through the forest faster than we could respond.
Beetle-kill stands are everywhere in Grand County and Larimer County,
Summit and Eagle, Saguache and San Miguel. They are increasingly
visible in pockets along the Front Range, among houses and communities
in the wildland-urban interface.
The areas with smaller outbreaks, like those in the Pike National
Forest and the Gunnison National Forest, are just as worrisome as the
massive outbreaks in northern Colorado. When we see even a handful of
beetle-kill trees, it usually means that the insects are already
attacking the surrounding trees.
Private land owners and local governments are doing all they can to
combat this problem--they are using their chainsaws to protect their
homes, they are spraying trees, and they are devising protection plans.
They wonder, though, if they aren't alone in this fight. They wonder if
the Federal Government is asleep at the wheel in the face of potential
disaster.
The people who see the browned-out, dead forests from their kitchen
windows wonder why Washington isn't moving faster to curb this
onslaught on our public lands--why is the government not clearing out
the dead trees, creating buffers to prevent the beetle from spreading,
or providing more resources and expertise to help local communities
protect themselves?
I have pressed Secretary Johanns to find funds to deal with this
emergency in Colorado and across the West. At the current budget
levels, we are simply not able to curb the bark beetle problem and
prepare for the upcoming fire season. We could be treating 2 or 3 times
as many acres this year if we only had adequate funds.
We must also give local communities and land managers the tools they
need to combat the bark beetle infestation. That is what S2584, the
``Rocky Mountain Fires Act,'' will do.
My bill will facilitate a swifter response by the Forest Service and
BLM to widespread insect infestations in our forests; provide
additional money to communities that are preparing or revising their
wildfire protection plans; make grant funding available for enterprises
that use woody biomass for energy production and other commercial
purposes, so that we can put beetle-kill trees and wood from hazard
fuels-reduction projects to good use; and allow the Forest Service and
the BLM to award stewardship contracts to nearby landowners, so that
residents can do hazard fuels reduction on federal lands to protect
their homes.
Coloradans are anxious for Congress to take action on the bark beetle
issue because they know the dangers they face. They remember the fire
storms of 2002, when the Hayman Fire burned 138,000 acres on the Front
Range, the Missonary Ridge Fire burned 70,000 acres near Durango, and
scores of other fires across the State chewed up resources and claimed
property and lives.
This year could be as bad, or worse, if we don't take action right
now.
We must find funds or provide emergency funding so that we can gear
up for the fire season. We must also pass bark beetle legislation that
gives communities and land managers the tools they need to protect
property and lives.
We must take action right now. As I am reminded by the reports of
fires in Colorado just this past week: this summer's fire season is
already upon us.
______

By Mr. SMITH (for himself and Mr. Kerry):
S. 2585. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit
military death gratuities to be contributed to certain tax-favored
accounts; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SMITH. America's service men and women continue to make the
ultimate sacrifices for our Nation. In the tragic cases where brave
soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors lose their lives in support of
Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom, we must honor
their service by ensuring that their families are not forced to
shoulder undue financial strain. Therefore, I am honored to introduce
the Fallen Heroes Family Savings Act.
This legislation will increase the flexibility given to families
while managing the death gratuity payment to the survivors of fallen
service men and women. This bill will provide these families expanded
financial options to invest the $100,000 death gratuity payment in
health, education, and retirement savings accounts. Allowing families
to transfer these funds will help them save money for a college
education, medical expenses, or to finance a future retirement.
Allowing military families increased financial flexibility is the
least we can do to honor the legacy our troops have worked so hard to
create. It is my hope that this legislation will assist the

[[Page S3236]]

families of fallen service men and women in their time of grief and
allow them to plan for their future.
I ask for unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the
following letter from the Military Officers Association of America in
support of this legislation.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Military Officers Association

of America,

Alexandria, VA, April 6, 2006.
Hon. Gordon Smith,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Smith: I am writing on behalf of the 360,000
members of the Military Officers Association of America
(MOAA) in support of your planned legislation, the Fallen
Heroes Family Savings Act. This important bill would help
military survivors manage the increased death gratuity
amounts permanently authorized in the FY2006 National Defense
Authorization Act.
The new $100,000 death gratuity provides greatly improved
compensation for military survivors and their families but
also presents a challenge as to where to safely invest such
sizeable sums to provide for future financial security. Your
bill would allow survivors to invest death gratuity lump sums
in Roth IRA's and other savings accounts, above the
contribution limits now allowed. This makes perfect sense and
is a logical extension of efforts to increase benefits to
widows.
MOAA is grateful for your leadership on this and other
issues important to our servicemembers. We pledge our support
in seeking enactment of this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Norb Ryan, Jr.,
President.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Smith and I are introducing
``The Fallen Heroes Family Savings Act'' that will help military
families that have suffered a tragic loss. In recent years, the
Congress has generously raised the amount of the military death
gratuity to $100,000 and expanded eligibility to all in uniform.
Our current tax laws do not allow the recipients of this payment to
use it to make contributions to tax-preferred accounts that help with
saving for retirement, health care, or the cost of education. Our
legislation would allow families who already have given so much to
contribute the death gratuity to certain tax-preferred accounts. These
contributions would be treated as qualified rollovers. The contribution
limits of these accounts will not be applied to these contributions.
This legislation will not ease the pain of military families that
suffer the loss of a loved one, but it can help families put their
lives back together. It will enable military families to save more for
retirement, education, and health care by being able to put the death
gratuity payment in an account in which the earnings will accumulate
tax-free.
These changes to our tax laws will help military families with some
of their financial burdens. It can not repay the sacrifices that they
have made for us, but it hopefully demonstrates the gratitude of a
Nation that will not forget the families of the fallen.
______

By Mr. KERRY:
S. 2586. A bill to establish a 2-year pilot program to develop a
curriculum at historically Black colleges and universities, Tribal
Colleges, and Hispanic serving institutions to foster entrepreneurship
and business development in underserved minority communities; to the
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Minority
Entrepreneurship and Innovation Pilot Program, legislation aimed at
addressing this Nation's growing economic disparities through
entrepreneurship and business development. It is the spirit of
entrepreneurship that has made America's economy the best in the world.
And it is through the energy and vitality of the small business sector
that we will help all sectors of American society benefit from our
robust economy.
Exactly one year ago, the National Urban League released a report on
the State of Black America, which discussed the growing economic gap
between African Americans and their white counterparts. The report
states that the median net worth of an African American family is
$6,100 compared with $67,000 for a white family. The report makes clear
that closing the racial wealth gap needs to be at the forefront of the
civil rights agenda moving into the twenty-first century.
Disproportionate unemployment figures for minorities versus their
white counterparts have also been a persistent problem. Even as the
administration has been touting the current low nationwide unemployment
rate, the African American unemployment rate was 9.5 percent, the
Hispanic unemployment rate was 6 percent, while the unemployment rate
for whites averaged 4.1 percent.
As the Ranking Member on the Senate Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, I have received firsthand testimony and countless
reports documenting the positive economic impact that occurs when we
foster entrepreneurship in underserved communities. There are signs of
significant economic returns when minority businesses are created and
are able to grow in size and capacity. Between 1987 and 1997, revenue
from minority owned firms rose by 22.5 percent, an increase equivalent
to an annual growth rate of 10 percent and employment opportunities
within minority owned firms increased by 23 percent during that same
period. There is a clear correlation between the growth of minority
owned firms and the economic viability of the minority community.
We have come a long way, but we still have a long way to go if this
country is going to keep the promise made to all its citizens of the
American dream. In 2005, African Americans accounted for 12.3 percent
of the population and only 4 percent of all U.S. businesses. Hispanics
Americans represent 12.5 percent of the U.S. population and
approximately 6 percent of all U.S. businesses. Native Americans
account for approximately 1 percent of the population and .9 percent of
all U.S. businesses. We can, and should do something to address what is
essentially an inequality of opportunity.
I have long argued that there is a compelling interest for the
Federal Government to create opportunities for business and economic
development in all communities--throughout this Nation. It is
appropriate for the Federal Government to lead the efforts and find
innovative solutions to the racial disparities that exist in this
country, whether they are in healthcare, education, or economics.
Economic disparities in this country are a very complex issue,
particularly when racial demographics are involved. I am well aware
that there is no one-size-fits-all solution and there is no single
piece of legislation that will level the playing field. However, I
strongly believe that education and entrepreneurship can help to close
the gap in business ownership and the wealth gap that exists in this
country. Many minorities are already turning to entrepreneurship as a
means of realizing the American dream. According to U.S. Census data,
Hispanics are opening businesses 3 times faster than the national
average. Business development and entrepreneurship have played a
significant role in the expansion of the black middle class in this
country for over a century.
The Minority Entrepreneurship and Innovation Pilot Program offers a
competitive grant to Historically Black Colleges and Universities,
Tribal Colleges, and HispanicServing Institutions to create an
entrepreneurship curriculum at these institutions and to open Small
Business Development Centers on campus to serve local businesses. The
colleges and universities that participate in this program will foster
entrepreneurship among their students, the best and brightest of the
minority community, and develop a pool of talented entrepreneurs that
are essential to innovation, job creation, and closing the wealth gap.
The bill would make 24 grants, for $1 million each, available to
institutions that include entrepreneurship and innovation as a part of
their organizational mission and open a business-counseling center for
those graduates that start their own businesses as well as the
surrounding community of existing business owners.
The goal of this program is to target students who have skills in
highly skilled fields such as engineering, manufacturing, science and
technology, and guide them towards entrepreneurship as a career option.
Minority-owned businesses already participate in a wide variety of
industries, but are

[[Page S3237]]

disproportionately represented in traditionally lowgrowth and low-
opportunity service sectors. Promoting entrepreneurial education to
undergraduate students at colleges and universities expands the pool of
potential business owners to technology, financial services, legal
services, and other non-traditional areas in which the overall
development of minority firms has been slow. Growing the size and
capacity of existing minority firms and promoting entrepreneurship
among minority students already committed to higher education will have
a direct relationship on the employment rate, income levels and wealth
creation of minorities throughout the nation.
The funds are also to be used to open a Small Business Development
Center (SBDC) on the campus of the institution to assist in capacity
building, innovation and market niche development, and to offer
traditional business counseling, similar to other SBDCs. The one-to-one
counseling offered by the business specialists at these centers has
proven to be the most effective model available for making
entrepreneurs run more effective, more efficient, and more successful
businesses. By placing the centers on campus, the institutions will be
able to leverage the $1 million grant for greater returns and
coordinate efforts with the school's academic departments to maximize
the efficacy of the program.
While the funding in this bill is modest relative to the multi-
billion dollar budgets we discuss on a daily basis, these funds can go
a long way and be leveraged to create economic growth in the most
needed areas of this country. With this legislation, we will help
foster long-term innovation and competitiveness in the small business
sector. Mr. President, this bill is a small investment in the future of
this country that I am sure will do much to foster economic growth in
our minority communities and beyond. I urge my colleagues to join me as
cosponsors of this important piece of legislation.
______

By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Inhofe) (by request):
S. 2589. A bill to enhance the management and disposal of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, to ensure protection of
public health and safety, to ensure the territorial integrity and
security of the repository at Yucca Mountain, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today, on behalf of
myself and Senator Inhofe, to introduce, at the request of the
administration, legislation to further the development at Yucca
Mountain of the national repository for nuclear spent fuel and defense
nuclear waste. This bill is a good start on the road to enactment of
legislation that will resolve issues critical to the construction,
licensing and operation of the facility.
I hope to begin hearings on this issue in the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee shortly after the conclusion of the upcoming
recess. I look forward to working with the administration, Senator
Inhofe, and other interested Senators to facilitate the construction
and operation of the repository, a project so important to the
continued development of safe, clean, and efficient nuclear power in
this country.
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. 2589

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 ``Nuclear Fuel Management and
Disposal Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

(a) Definitions From Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 .--In
this Act, the terms ``Commission'', ``disposal'', ``Federal
agency'', ``high-level radioactive waste'', ``repository'',
``Secretary'', ``State'', ``spent nuclear fuel'', and ``Yucca
Mountain site'' have the meaning given those terms in section
2 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101).
(b) Other Definitions.--In this Act:
(1) Project.--The term ``Project'' means the Yucca Mountain
Project.
(2) Secretary concerned.--The term ``Secretary concerned''
means the Secretary of the Air Force or the Secretary of the
Interior, or both, as appropriate.
(3) Withdrawal.--The term ``Withdrawal'' means the
withdrawal under section 3(a)(1) of the geographic area
consisting of the land described in section 3(c).

SEC. 3. LAND WITHDRAWAL AND RESERVATION.

(a) Land Withdrawal, Jurisdiction, and Reservation.--
(1) Land withdrawal.--Subject to valid existing rights and
except as provided otherwise in this Act, the land described
in subsection (c) is withdrawn permanently from all forms of
entry, appropriation, and disposal under the public land
laws, including, without limitation, the mineral leasing
laws, geothermal leasing laws, and mining laws.
(2) Jurisdiction.--
(A) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this Act,
the Secretary shall have jurisdiction over the Withdrawal.
(B) Transfer.--There is transferred to the Secretary the
land covered by the Withdrawal that is under the jurisdiction
of the Secretary concerned on the date of enactment of this
Act.
(3) Reservation.--The land covered by the Withdrawal is
reserved for use by the Secretary for the development,
preconstruction testing and performance confirmation,
licensing, construction, management and operation,
monitoring, closure, post-closure, and other activities
associated with the disposal of high-level radioactive waste
and spent nuclear fuel under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.).
(b) Revocation and Modification of Public Land Orders and
Rights-of-Way.--
(1) Public land order revocation.--Public Land Order 6802
of September 25, 1990, as extended by Public Land Order 7534,
and any conditions or memoranda of understanding accompanying
those land orders, are revoked.
(2) Right of way reservations.--Project right-of-way
reservations N-48602 and N-47748 of January 5, 2001, are
revoked.
(c) Land Description.--
(1) Boundaries.--The land and interests in land covered by
the Withdrawal and reserved by this Act comprise the
approximately 147,000 acres of land in Nye County, Nevada, as
generally depicted on the Yucca Mountain Project Map, YMP-03-
024.2, entitled ``Proposed Land Withdrawal'' and dated July
21, 2005.
(2) Legal description and map.--As soon as practicable
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the
Interior shall--
(A) publish in the Federal Register a notice containing a
legal description of the land covered by the Withdrawal; and
(B) file copies of the maps described in paragraph (1) and
the legal description of the land covered by the Withdrawal
with Congress, the Governor of the State of Nevada, and the
Archivist of the United States.
(3) Technical corrections.--The maps and legal description
referred to in this subsection have the same force and effect
as if included in this Act, except that the Secretary of the
Interior may correct clerical and typographical errors in the
maps and legal description.
(d) Relationship to Other Reservations.--
(1) In general.--Subtitle A of title XXX of the Military
Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-65; 113 Stat.
885) and Public Land Order 2568 do not apply to the land
covered by the Withdrawal and reserved by subsection (a).
(2) Other withdrawn land.--This Act does not apply to any
other land withdrawn for use by the Department of Defense
under subtitle A of title XXX of the Military Lands
Withdrawal Act of 1999.
(e) Management Responsibilities.--
(1) General authority.--The Secretary, in consultation with
the Secretary concerned, as applicable, shall manage the land
covered by the Withdrawal in accordance with the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.),
this Act, and other applicable law.
(2) Management plan.--
(A) Development.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, after consultation with
the Secretary concerned, shall develop and submit to Congress
and the State of Nevada a management plan for the use of the
land covered by the Withdrawal.
(B) Priority of yucca mountain project-related issues.--
Subject to subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E), any use of the
land covered by the Withdrawal for activities not associated
with the Project is subject to such conditions and
restrictions as the Secretary considers to be necessary or
desirable to permit the conduct of Project-related
activities.
(C) Department of the air force uses.--The management plan
may provide for the continued use by the Department of the
Air Force of the portion of the land covered by the
Withdrawal within the Nellis Air Force Base Test and Training
Range under terms and conditions on which the Secretary and
the Secretary of the Air Force agree with respect to Air
Force activities.
(D) Nevada test site uses.--The Secretary may--
(i) permit the National Nuclear Security Administration to
continue to use the portion of the land covered by the
Withdrawal on the Nevada Test Site; and
(ii) impose any conditions on that use that the Secretary
considers to be necessary to minimize any effect on Project
or Administration activities.
(E) Other non-yucca mountain project uses.--
(i) In general.--The management plan shall provide for the
maintenance of wildlife habitat and the permitting by the
Secretary

[[Page S3238]]

of non-Project-related uses that the Secretary considers to
be appropriate, including domestic livestock grazing and
hunting and trapping in accordance with clauses (ii) and
(iii).
(ii) Grazing.--Subject to regulations, policies, and
practices that the Secretary, after consultation with the
Secretary of the Interior, determines to be necessary or
appropriate, the Secretary may permit grazing on land covered
by the Withdrawal to continue on areas on which grazing was
established before the date of enactment of this Act, in
accordance with applicable grazing laws and policies,
including--

(I) the Act of June 28, 1934 (commonly known as the
``Taylor Grazing Act'') (43 U.S.C. 315 et seq.);
(II) title IV of the Federal Land Policy Management Act of
1976 (43 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.); and
(III) the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43
U.S.C. 1901 et seq.).

(iii) Hunting and trapping.--The Secretary may permit
hunting and trapping on land covered by the Withdrawal on
areas in which hunting and trapping were permitted on the day
before the date of enactment of this Act, except that the
Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of the
Interior and the State of Nevada, may designate zones in
which, and establish periods during which, no hunting or
trapping is permitted for reasons of public safety, national
security, administration, or public use and enjoyment.
(F) Mining.--
(i) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
surface or subsurface mining or oil or gas production,
including slant drilling from outside the boundaries of the
land covered by the Withdrawal, is not permitted at any time
on or under the land covered by the Withdrawal.
(ii) Validity of claims.--The Secretary of the Interior
shall evaluate and adjudicate the validity of all mining
claims on the portion of land covered by the Withdrawal that,
on the date of enactment of this Act, was under the control
of the Bureau of Land Management.
(iii) Compensation.--The Secretary shall provide just
compensation for the acquisition of any valid property right.
(iv) Cind-r-lite mine.--

(I) In general.--Patented Mining Claim No. 27-83-0002,
covering the Cind-R-Lite mine, shall not be affected by
establishment of the Withdrawal, unless the Secretary, after
consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, determines
that the acquisition of the mine is required in furtherance
of the reserved use of the land covered by the Withdrawal
described in subsection (a)(3).
(II) Compensation.--If the Secretary determines that the
acquisition of the mine described in subclause (I) is
required, the Secretary shall provide just compensation for
acquisition of the mine.

(G) Limited public access.--The management plan may provide
for limited public access to and use of the portion of the
land covered by the Withdrawal that is under the jurisdiction
of the Bureau of Land Management on the date of enactment of
this Act, including for--
(i) continuation of the Nye County Early Warning Drilling
Program;
(ii) utility corridors; and
(iii) such other uses as the Secretary, after consultation
with the Secretary of the Interior, considers to be
consistent with the purposes of the Withdrawal.
(H) Closure.--If the Secretary, after consultation with the
Secretary concerned, determines that the health or safety of
the public or the common defense or security requires the
closure of a road, trail, or other portion of land covered by
the Withdrawal, or the airspace above land covered by the
Withdrawal, the Secretary--
(i) may close the portion of land or the airspace; and
(ii) shall provide public notice of the closure.
(3) Implementation.--The Secretary and the Secretary
concerned shall implement the management plan developed under
paragraph (2) in accordance with terms and conditions on
which the Secretary and the Secretary concerned jointly
agree.
(f) Immunity.--The United States (including each department
and agency of the Federal Government) shall be held harmless,
and shall not be liable, for damages to a person or property
suffered in the course of any mining, mineral leasing, or
geothermal leasing activity conducted on the land covered by
the Withdrawal.
(g) Land Acquisition.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may acquire land, and
interests in land within the land, covered by the Withdrawal.
(2) Method of acquisition.--Land and interests in land
described in paragraph (1) may be acquired by donation,
purchase, lease, exchange, easement, right-of-way, or other
appropriate methods using donated or appropriated funds.
(3) Exchange of land.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
conduct any exchange of land covered by the Withdrawal for
Federal land not covered by the Withdrawal.

SEC. 4. APPLICATION PROCEDURES AND INFRASTRUCTURE ACTIVITIES.

(a) Application.--Section 114(b) of the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10134(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``If the President'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--If the President''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following
``(2) Required information.--An application for
construction authorization shall not be required to contain
information any surface facility other than surface
facilities necessary for initial operation of the
repository.''.
(b) Application Procedures and Infrastructure Activities.--
Section 114(d) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42
U.S.C. 10134(d)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``The Commission
shall consider'' and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--The Commission shall consider'';
(2) by striking the last 2 sentences; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (1) (as designated by
paragraph (1)) the following:
``(2) Amendments to application for construction
authorization.--
``(A) In general.--If the Commission approves an
application for construction authorization and the Secretary
submits an application to amend the authorization to obtain
permission to receive and possess spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste, or to undertake any other
action concerning the repository, the Commission shall
consider the application using expedited, informal
procedures, including discovery procedures that minimize the
burden on the parties to produce documents that the
Commission does not need to render a decision on an action
under this section.
``(B) Final decision.--The Commission shall issue a final
decision on whether to grant permission to receive and
possess spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste,
or on any other application, by the date that is 1 year after
the date of submission of the application, except that the
Commission may extend that deadline by not more than 180 days
if, not less than 30 days before the deadline, the Commission
complies with the reporting requirements under subsection
(e)(2).
``(3) Infrastructure activities.--
``(A) In general.--At any time before or after the
Commission issues a final decision on an application from the
Secretary for construction authorization under this
subsection, the Secretary may undertake infrastructure
activities that the Secretary determines to be necessary or
appropriate to support construction or operation of a
repository at the Yucca Mountain site or transportation to
the Yucca Mountain site of spent nuclear fuel and high level
radioactive waste, including infrastructure activities such
as--
``(i) safety upgrades;
``(ii) site preparation;
``(iii) the construction of a rail line to connect the
Yucca Mountain site with the national rail network, including
any facilities to facilitate rail operations; and
``(iv) construction, upgrade, acquisition, or operation of
electrical grids or facilities, other utilities,
communication facilities, access roads, rail lines, and non-
nuclear support facilities.
``(B) Compliance.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall comply with all
applicable requirements under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) with respect to
an infrastructure activity undertaken under this paragraph.
``(ii) EIS.--If the Secretary determines that an
environmental impact statement or similar analysis under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is required in
connection with an infrastructure activity undertaken under
this paragraph, the Secretary shall not be required to
consider the need for the action, alternative actions, or a
no-action alternative.
``(iii) Other agencies.--

``(I) In general.--To the extent that a Federal agency is
required to consider the potential environmental impact of an
infrastructure activity undertaken under this paragraph, the
Federal agency shall adopt, to the maximum extent
practicable, an environmental impact statement or similar
analysis prepared under this paragraph without further
action.
``(II) Effect of adoption of statement.--Adoption of an
environmental impact statement or similar analysis described
in subclause (I) shall be considered to satisfy the
responsibilities of the adopting agency under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),
and no further action for the activity covered by the
statement or analysis shall be required by the agency.

``(C) Denials of authorization.--The Commission may not
deny construction authorization, permission to receive and
possess spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste,
or any other action concerning the repository on the ground
that the Secretary undertook an infrastructure activity under
this paragraph.''.
(c) Connected Actions.--Section 114(f)(6) of the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10134(f)(6)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or''; and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, or an action connected or otherwise relating
to the repository, to the extent the action is undertaken
outside the geologic repository operations area and does not
require a license from the Commission''.
(d) Expedited Authorizations.--Section 120 of the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10140) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) in the first sentence, by inserting ``, or the conduct
of an infrastructure activity,'' after ``repository'';

[[Page S3239]]

(B) by inserting ``, State, local, or tribal'' after
``Federal'' each place it appears; and
(C) in the second sentence, by striking ``repositories''
and inserting ``a repository or infrastructure activity'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``, and may include
terms and conditions permitted by law''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Failure to Grant Authorization.--An agency or officer
that fails to grant authorization by the date that is 1 year
after the date of receipt of an application or request from
the Secretary subject to subsection (a) shall submit to
Congress a written report that explains the reason for not
meeting that deadline or rejecting the application or
request.
``(d) Treatment of Actions.--For the purpose of applying
any Federal, State, local, or tribal law or requirement, the
taking of an action relating to a repository or an
infrastructure activity shall be considered to be--
``(1) beneficial, and not detrimental, to the public
interest and interstate commerce; and
``(2) consistent with the public convenience and
necessity.''.

SEC. 5. NUCLEAR WASTE FUND.

(a) Crediting Fees.--Beginning on October 1, 2007, and
continuing through the end of the fiscal year during which
construction is completed for the Nevada rail line and
surface facilities for the fully operational repository
described in the license application, fees collected by the
Secretary and deposited in the Nuclear Waste Fund established
by section 302(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42
U.S.C. 10222(c)) shall be credited to the Nuclear Waste Fund
as discretionary offsetting collections each year in amounts
not to exceed the amounts appropriated from the Nuclear Waste
Fund for that year.
(b) Fund Uses.--Section 302(d)(4) of the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222(d)(4)) is amended by
inserting after ``with'' the following: ``infrastructure
activities that the Secretary determines to be necessary or
appropriate to support construction or operation of a
repository at the Yucca Mountain site or transportation to
the Yucca Mountain site of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste, and''.

SEC. 6. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Material Requirements.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, no Federal, State, interstate, or local
requirement, either substantive or procedural, that is
referred to in section 6001(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act (42 U.S.C. 6961(a)), applies to--
(1) any material owned by the Secretary, if the material is
transported or stored in a package, cask, or other container
that the Commission has certified for transportation or
storage of that type of material; or
(2) any material located at the Yucca Mountain site for
disposal, if the management and disposal of the material is
subject to a license issued by the Commission.
(b) Permits.--
(1) In general.--The Environmental Protection Agency shall
be the permitting agency for purposes of issuing,
administering, or enforcing any new or existing air quality
permit or requirement applicable to a Federal facility or
activity relating to the Withdrawal that is subject to the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.).
(2) State and local activity.--A State or unit of local
government shall not issue, administer, or enforce a new or
existing air quality permit or requirement affecting a
Federal facility or activity that is--
(A) located on the land covered by the Withdrawal; and
(B) subject to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42
U.S.C. 10101 et seq.).

SEC. 7. TRANSPORTATION.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 is amended by
inserting after section 180 (42 U.S.C. 10175) the following:

``SEC. 181. TRANSPORTATION.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary may determine the extent
to which any transportation required to carry out the duties
of the Secretary under this Act that is regulated under the
Hazardous Materials Transportation Authorization Act of 1994
(title I of Public Law 103-311; 108 Stat. 1673) and
amendments made by that Act shall instead be regulated
exclusively under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2011 et seq.).
``(b) Determination of Preemption.--On request by the
Secretary, the Secretary of Transportation may determine,
pursuant to section 5125 of title 49, United States Code,
that any requirement of a State, political subdivision of a
State, or Indian tribe regarding transportation carried out
by or on behalf of the Secretary in carrying out this Act is
preempted, regardless of whether the transportation otherwise
is or would be subject to regulation under the Hazardous
Materials Transportation Authorization Act of 1994 (title I
of Public Law 103-311; 108 Stat. 1673).''.

SEC. 8. CONSIDERATION OF EFFECT OF ACQUISITION OF WATER
RIGHTS.

Section 124 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42
U.S.C. 10144) is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and all that follows
through ``The Secretary'' and inserting the following:

``SEC. 124. CONSIDERATION OF EFFECT OF ACQUISITION OF WATER
RIGHTS.

``(a) Water Rights Acquisition Effect.--The Secretary'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Beneficial Use of Water.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other Federal,
State, or local law, the use of water from any source in
quantities sufficient to accomplish the purposes of this Act
and to carry out functions of the Department under this Act
shall be considered to be a use that--
``(A) is beneficial to interstate commerce; and
``(B) does not threaten to prove detrimental to the public
interest.
``(2) Conflicting state laws.--A State shall not enact or
apply a law that discriminates against a use described in
paragraph (1).
``(3) Acquisition of water rights.--The Secretary, through
purchase or other means, may obtain water rights necessary to
carry out functions of the Department under this Act.''.

SEC. 9. CONFIDENCE IN AVAILABILITY OF WASTE DISPOSAL.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in deciding
whether to permit the construction or operation of a nuclear
reactor or any related facilities, the Commission shall deem,
without further consideration, that sufficient capacity will
be available in a timely manner to dispose of the spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste resulting from
the operation of the reactor and related facilities.
______

By Mr. COBURN (for himself, Mr. Obama, Mr. Carper, and Mr.
McCain):
S. 2590. A bill to require full disclosure of all entities and
organizations receiving Federal funds; to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, today, along with Senators Barack Obama,
Thomas Carper, and John McCain, I introduced legislation to create an
online public database that itemizes Federal funding.
The bill ensures that the taxpayers will now know how their money is
being spent. Every citizen in this country, after all, should have the
right to know what organizations and activities are being funded with
their hard-earned tax dollars.
The Federal Government awards roughly $300 billion in grants annually
to 30,000 different organizations across the United States, according
to the General Services Administration.
This bill would require the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, to
establish and maintain a single public Web site that lists all entities
receiving Federal funds, including the name of each entity, the amount
of Federal funds the entity has received annually by program, and the
location of the entity. All Federal assistance must be posted within 30
days of such funding being awarded to an organization.
This would be an important tool to make Federal funding more
accountable and transparent. It would also help to reduce fraud, abuse,
and misallocation of Federal funds by requiring greater accounting of
Federal expenditures. According to OMB, Federal agencies reported $37.3
billion in improper payments for fiscal year 2005 alone. Better
tracking of Federal funds would ensure that agencies and taxpayers know
where resources are being spent and likely reduce the number of
improper payments by Federal agencies.
Over the past year, the Senate Federal Financial Management
Subcommittee, which I chair along with ranking member Carper, has
uncovered tens of billions of dollars in fraud, abuse and wasteful
spending, ranging from expensive leasing schemes to corporate welfare
to bloated bureaucracy. This database would ensure that such spending
is better tracked and the public can hold policymakers and Government
agencies accountable for questionable spending decisions.
The Web site required by this bill would not be difficult to develop.
In fact, one such site already exists for some Federal funds provided
by agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS.
The CRISP, Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects, is
a searchable database of federally funded biomedical research projects
conducted at universities, hospitals, and other research institutions.
The database, maintained by the Office of Extramural Research at the
National Institutes of Health, includes projects funded by the National
Institutes of Health, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services,
Health Resources and Services Administration, Food and Drug
Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, Agency
for Health Care Research and Quality, and Office of Assistant Secretary
of Health. The CRISP database contains current and

[[Page S3240]]

historical awards dating from 1972 to the present.
This type of information should be available for all Federal
contracts, grants, loans, and assistance provided by all Federal
agencies and departments.
It often takes agencies months to verify or to determine an
organization's funding when requested by Congress. There are numerous
examples of Federal agencies or entities receiving Federal funds
actually trying to camouflage how Federal dollars are being spent or
distributing public funds in violation of Federal laws.
In October 2005, the House Government Reform Committee's Subcommittee
on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources questioned the
U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, assistant
administrator to determine if the agency was funding a proprostitution
nongovernmental organization called Sampada Grameen Mahila Sanstha,
SANGRAM, in apparent violation of Public Law 108-25. This law prohibits
funds from being used ``to promote or advocate the legalization or
practice of prostitution or sex trafficking,'' and organizations
seeking Federal funding for HIV/AIDS work must have a policy
``explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.''
According to an unclassified State Department memorandum, Restore
International, an antitrafficking organization working in India, was
``confronted by a USAID-funded NGO, SANGRAM while the former attempted
to rescue and provide long-term care for child victims of sex
trafficking. The confrontation led to the release of 17 minor girls--
victims of trafficking--into the hands of traffickers and trafficking
accomplices.'' According to this memorandum, SANGRAM ``allowed a
brothel keeper into a shelter to pressure the girls not to cooperate
with counselors. The girls are now back in the brothels, being
subjected to rape for profit.''
On November 16, 2005, a USAID briefer asserted to subcommittee staff
that USAID had ``nothing to do with'' the grant to the proprostitution
SANGRAM and that the subcommittee's inquiries were ``destructive.''
Nonetheless, congressional investigators continued to pursue this
matter and eventually proved that USAID money financed the
proprostitution SANGRAM through a second organization named Avert,
which was established with the assistance of four USAID employees as a
passthrough entity. USAID has held the ex-officio vice chairmanship of
Avert since inception. According to documents obtained by the
subcommittee, the USAID board member of Avert voted twice to award
funding to SANGRAM--July 27, 2002 and again on December 3, 2004--the
last time being some 18 months after the provisions of Public Law 108-
25 prohibited taxpayer funding of proprostitution groups like SANGRAM.

Last August, HHS sponsored a conference in Utah entitled the ``First
National Conference on Methamphetamine, HIV and Hepatitis'' that
promoted illegal drug abuse and dangerous sexual behavior. Conference
sessions included: ``We Don't Need a `War' on Methamphetamine''; ``You
Don't Have to Be Clean & Sober. Or Even Want to Be!''; ``Tweaking Tips
for Party Boys''; ``Barebacking: A Harm Reduction Approach''; and
``Without condoms: Harm Reduction, Unprotected Sex, Gay Men and
Barebacking.'' ``Tweaking'' is a street term for the most dangerous
stage of meth abuse. A ``tweaker'' is a term for a meth addict who
probably has not slept in days, or weeks, and is irritable and
paranoid. Likewise, ``party boy'' is slang for an individual who abuses
drugs, or ``parties.'' ``Barebacking'' is a slang term for sexual
intercourse without the use of a condom.
While HHS initially denied sponsoring the conference, it was later
learned that thousands of dollars of a CDC grant were used to, in fact,
sponsor this conference and CDC sent six employees to participate. In a
letter dated October 28, 2005, CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding
admitted that ``Although CDC was not listed as a sponsor, a portion of
CDC's cooperative agreement with Utah, $13,500, was used to support the
conference. While Utah informed a CDC project officer that Utah and the
Harm Reduction Coalition were sponsoring the conference and shared a
draft agenda with the project officer, Utah did not inform the project
officer about the particular source of the funding for the
conference.''
Previously, the CDC was questioned about its financial support for a
number of dubious HIV prevention workshops, including ``flirting
classes'' and ``Booty Call,'' orchestrated by the Stop AIDS Foundation
of San Francisco. While CDC repeatedly denied to both Congress and the
public that taxpayer funds were used to finance these programs, a Stop
AIDS Project official eventually admitted in August 2001 to using
Federal funds for the programs. An HHS Office of Inspector General,
OIG, investigation also concluded in November 2001 that Federal funds
were used to finance the programs and that the programs themselves
contained content that may violate Federal laws and Federal guidelines
were not followed. The OIG found that the activity under review ``did
not fully comply with the cooperative agreement and other CDC
guidance,'' that the CDC requirement for review of materials by a local
review panel was not followed, and characterized some of the project
activities as ``inappropriate.'' Finally, the OIG concluded that ``CDC
funding was used to support all [Stop AIDS] Project activities.'' The
Stop AIDS Project received approximately $700,000 a year from the CDC
but no longer receives Federal funding.
These are just a few recent examples from only a couple agencies
uncovered due to aggressive congressional oversight. While the public,
whose taxes finance these groups and programs, watchdog organizations,
and the media can file Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, requests for
this same information, such requests can take months to receive answers
and often go completely ignored.
If enacted, this legislation will finally ensure true accountability
and transparency in how the Government spends our money, which will
hopefully lead to more fiscal responsibility by the Federal Government.
______

By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Bingaman, Ms.
Murkowski, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Chafee, and Mrs. Clinton):
S. 2592. A bill to amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to improve
the nutrition and health of schoolchildren by updating the definition
of ``food of minimal nutritional value'' to conform to current
nutrition science and to protect the Federal investment in the national
school lunch and breakfast programs; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, our Nation faces a public health crisis of
the first order. Poor diet and physical inactivity are contributing to
growing rates of chronic disease in the U.S. These problems do not just
affect adults, but increasingly affect the health of our children as
well. Research suggests that one-third of American children born today
will develop type II diabetes at some point. For some minority
children, the numbers are even more shocking, as high as 50 percent. At
the same time, rates of overweight among children are skyrocketing:
tripling among children ages 6-11, and doubling among children ages 2
to 5 and ages 12-19 over the past three decades. Indeed, just this week
the Journal of the American Medical Association released a new study
that found that, in just the past 5 years, rates of childhood
overweight and obesity rose very significantly.
There are many reasons for this public health crisis, and
accordingly, addressing the crisis will require multiple solutions as
well. One place where we can start is with our schools, which have been
inundated with foods and drinks having little or no positive
nutritional value. A recent study from the Government Accountability
office found that 99 percent of high schools, 97 percent of middle
schools, and 83 percent of elementary schools sell foods from vending
machines, school stores, or a-la-carte lines in the cafeteria. And it
is not fresh fruits and vegetables and other healthy foods that are
being sold. No, the vast majority of the foods being sold in our
schools outside of Federal meal programs are foods that contribute
nothing to the health and development of our children and are actually
detrimental to them.
Not only does the over consumption of these foods take a toll on the
health

[[Page S3241]]

of our children, but they also have a negative impact of the investment
of taxpayer dollars in the health of our kids. Every year the Federal
Government spends nearly $10 billion to reimburse schools for the
provision of meals through the National School Lunch Program and School
Breakfast Program. In order to receive reimbursement, these meals must
meet nutrition standards based upon the Dietary Guidelines for All
Americans, the official dietary advice of the U.S. government. However,
sales of food elsewhere in our schools do not fall under these
guidelines. Therefore, as children consume more and more of the foods
typically sold through school vending machines and snack bars, it
undermines the nearly $10 billion in Federal reimbursements that we
spend on nutritionally balanced school meals.
Finally, the heavy selling of candy, soft drinks and other junk food
in our schools undermines the guidance, and even the instruction and
authority of parents who want to help their children consume sound and
balanced diets. The American public agrees. A Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation poll from several years ago found that 90 percent of parents
would like to see schools remove the typical junk food from vending
machines and replace it with healthier alternatives. My bill seeks to
restore the role and authority of parents by ensuring that schools
provide the healthy, balanced nutrition that contributes to health and
development.
What really hurts children and undermines parents is the junk food
free-for-all that currently exists in so many of our schools. How does
it help kids if the school sells them a 20-ounce soda and a candy bar
for lunch when their parents have sent them to school with the
expectation that they will have balanced meals from the school lunch
program?
Today, for the first time ever, bipartisan legislation is being
introduced in both Chambers of Congress to address this problem--and to
do what is right for the health of our kids. This bill is supported by
key health and education groups, and I would like to thank the National
PTA, the American Medical Association, the Center for Science in the
Public Interest, the American Heart Association, the American Dietetic
Association, the American Diabetes Association, and others for their
strong support.
The Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act of 2006
does two very simple but important things:
First, it requires the Secretary of Agriculture to initiate a
rulemaking process to update nutritional standards for foods sold in
schools. Currently, USDA relies upon a very narrow nutritional standard
that is nearly 30 years old. Since that definition was formulated,
children's diets and dietary risk have changed dramatically. In that
time, we have also learned a great deal about the relationship between
poor diet and chronic disease. It is time for public policy to catch up
with the science.
Second, the bill requires the Secretary of Agriculture to apply the
updated definition everywhere on school grounds and throughout the
school day. Currently, the Secretary can only issue rules limiting a
very narrow class of foods, and then only stop their sales in the
actual school cafeteria during the meal period. As a result, a child
only needs to walk into the hall outside the cafeteria to buy a
``lunch'' consisting of soda, a bag of chips and a candy bar. This is a
loophole that is big enough to drive a soft drink delivery truck
through--literally. It is time to close it.
The bill is supported in the Senate by a bipartisan group of
Senators. Joining me in introducing the bill are Senator Specter of
Pennsylvania, Senator Bingaman of New Mexico, Senator Murkowski of
Alaska, Senator Durbin of Illinois, and Senator Chafee of Rhode Island.
The diverse group of supporters of this bill cuts all lines and shows
that when the health of our children is at stake, we can put aside our
differences in the interest of our children.
This bill, by itself, will not solve the problem of poor diet and
rising rates of chronic disease among our children and adults. But it
is a start. Scientists predict that--because of obesity and preventable
chronic diseases--the current generation of children could very well be
the first in American history to live shorter lives than their parents.
If this isn't a wakeup call, I don't know what is.
Our children are at risk. The time to act is now. And that's why I am
pleased to introduce the Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch
Protection Act of 2006.
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. 2592

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 ``Child Nutrition Promotion
and School Lunch Protection Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) for a school food service program to receive Federal
reimbursements under the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42
U.S.C. 1771 et seq.) or the Richard B. Russell National
School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.), school meals
served by that program must meet science-based nutritional
standards established by Congress and the Secretary of
Agriculture;
(2) foods sold individually outside the school meal
programs (including foods sold in vending machines, a la
carte or snack lines, school stores, and snack bars) are not
required to meet comparable nutritional standards;
(3) in order to promote child nutrition and health,
Congress--
(A) has authorized the Secretary to establish nutritional
standards in the school lunchroom during meal time; and
(B) since 1979, has prohibited the sale of food of minimal
nutritional value, as defined by the Secretary, in areas
where school meals are sold or eaten;
(4) Federally-reimbursed school meals and child nutrition
and health are undermined by the uneven authority of the
Secretary to set nutritional standards throughout the school
campus and over the course of the school day;
(5) since 1979, when the Secretary defined the term ``food
of minimal nutritional value'' and promulgated regulations
for the sale of those foods during meal times, nutrition
science has evolved and expanded;
(6) the current definition of ``food of minimal nutritional
value'' is inconsistent with current knowledge about
nutrition and health;
(7) because some children purchase foods other than
balanced meals provided through the school lunch program
established under the Richard B. Russell National School
Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) and the school breakfast
program established by section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act
of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773), the efforts of parents to ensure
that their children consume healthful diets are undermined;
(8) experts in nutrition science have found that--
(A) since 1980, rates of obesity have doubled in children
and tripled in adolescents;
(B) only 2 percent of children eat a healthy diet that is
consistent with Federal nutrition recommendations;
(C) 3 out of 4 high school students do not eat the minimum
recommended number of servings of fruits and vegetables each
day; and
(D) type 2 diabetes, which is primarily due to poor diet
and physical inactivity, is rising rapidly in children;
(9) in 1996, children aged 2 to 18 years consumed an
average of 118 more calories per day than similar children
did in 1978, which is the equivalent of 12 pounds of weight
gain annually, if not compensated for through increased
physical activity; and
(10) according to the Surgeon General, the direct and
indirect costs of obesity in the United States are
$117,000,000,000 per year.

SEC. 3. FOOD OF MINIMAL NUTRITIONAL VALUE.

Section 10 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C.
1779) is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and all that follows
through ``(a) The Secretary'' and inserting the following:

``SEC. 10. REGULATIONS.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary''; and
(2) by striking subsections (b) and (c) and inserting the
following:
``(b) Food of Minimal Nutritional Value.--
``(1) Proposed regulations.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall
promulgate proposed regulations to revise the definition of
`food of minimal nutritional value' that is used to carry out
this Act and the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act
(42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.).
``(B) Application.--The revised definition of `food of
minimal nutritional value' shall apply to all foods sold--
``(i) outside the school meal programs;
``(ii) on the school campus; and
``(iii) at any time during the school day.
``(C) Requirements.--In revising the definition, the
Secretary shall consider--
``(i) both the positive and negative contributions of
nutrients, ingredients, and

[[Page S3242]]

foods (including calories, portion size, saturated fat, trans
fat, sodium, and added sugars) to the diets of children;
``(ii) evidence concerning the relationship between
consumption of certain nutrients, ingredients, and foods to
both preventing and promoting the development of overweight,
obesity, and other chronic illnesses;
``(iii) recommendations made by authoritative scientific
organizations concerning appropriate nutritional standards
for foods sold outside of the reimbursable meal programs in
schools; and
``(iv) special exemptions for school-sponsored fundraisers
(other than fundraising through vending machines, school
stores, snack bars, a la carte sales, and any other
exclusions determined by the Secretary), if the fundraisers
are approved by the school and are infrequent within the
school.
``(2) Implementation.--
``(A) Effective date.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the
proposed regulations shall take effect at the beginning of
the school year following the date on which the regulations
are finalized.
``(ii) Exception.--If the regulations are finalized on a
date that is not more than 60 days before the beginning of
the school year, the proposed regulations shall take effect
at the beginning of the following school year.
``(B) Failure to promulgate.--If, on the date that is 1
year after the date of enactment of this paragraph, the
Secretary has not promulgated final regulations, the proposed
regulations shall be considered to be final regulations.''.
______

By Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Murray, Ms.
Mikulski, Mr. Lautenberg, Ms. Stabenow, and Ms. Cantwell):
S. 2593. A bill to protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman's
freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Freedom of
Choice Act. When the Supreme Court issued its landmark Roe v. Wade
decision in 1973, it made clear that our Constitutional right to
privacy grants women the freedom to choose whether to begin, prevent,
or continue a pregnancy.
The purpose of this bill is very simple: It ensures that the
guarantees of Roe v. Wade will be there for every generation of women.
We know what Roe has meant for women these past 33 years. It has
allowed them to make their most personal and difficult reproductive
decisions in consultation with loved ones and health care providers. It
has given them the dignity to plan their own families and the ability
to participate fully in the economic and social life of our country.
And, most important, it has preserved health and saved lives.
Many of us are old enough to remember what it was like in the days
before Roe. More than a million women a year were forced to seek
illegal abortions, pushed into the back alleys where they risked
infection, hemorrhage, disfiguration, and death. Some estimate that
thousands of women died every year because of illegal abortions before
Roe.
When the Senate debated the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Alito,
women wrote to me with their own heart-breaking stories. For one woman,
the year was 1956. She was only four when her mother died of an illegal
abortion performed with a coat hanger. Too scared to ask for help, her
mother bled to death at work.
Another woman wrote to me about how hard her mother and father
struggled during the depression, how they worked day and night to make
ends meet and support their two children. When her mother found out she
was pregnant again, she had health problems, and she knew she couldn't
take care of another child. She made the very difficult decision to get
an illegal abortion. The procedure left her bleeding for weeks, and she
almost died.
Mr. President, the American people do not want us to go back to those
dark days. In a recent CNN poll, 66 percent said they do not want Roe
overturned. Yet there is a dangerous movement afoot to overrule Roe
and, in the meantime, to severely undermine its promises.
Make no mistake: The threat to Roe is real and immediate. President
Bush has already put two anti-choice justices on the Supreme Court,
where reproductive freedom now hangs by a thread. More than 450 anti-
choice measures have been enacted by the states since 1995.
Recently, South Dakota enacted a ban on abortion in nearly all
circumstances, even when a woman's health is at stake, even when she is
the victim of rape and incest. And South Dakota is not alone. Several
other states are considering similar bans.
The extremists behind these abortion bans make no secret about their
goal. They want to use these laws to overturn Roe, and they think that
the changes on the Supreme Court give them a chance to do just that.
We must act now. That is why I am introducing legislation today to
protect the reproductive freedom of women across America.
The Freedom of Choice Act writes Roe v. Wade into federal law. It
says that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a
child; to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability; or, if
necessary to protect the health or life of the mother, after viability.
It says that we will not turn back the clock on the health and rights
of women. And it says that we will take steps--as a Congress and as a
country--to safeguard the dignity, privacy, and health of women now and
for generations to come.
I thank the cosponsors of this legislation, and I ask all my
colleagues who support Roe v. Wade to join us in making sure that it is
the law of the land, and 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. 2593

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 ``Freedom of Choice Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) The United States was founded on core principles, such
as liberty, personal privacy, and equality, which ensure that
individuals are free to make their most intimate decisions
without governmental interference and discrimination.
(2) One of the most private and difficult decisions an
individual makes is whether to begin, prevent, continue, or
terminate a pregnancy. Those reproductive health decisions
are best made by women, in consultation with their loved ones
and health care providers.
(3) In 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479), and
in 1973, in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113) and Doe v. Bolton (410
U.S. 179), the Supreme Court recognized that the right to
privacy protected by the Constitution encompasses the right
of every woman to weigh the personal, moral, and religious
considerations involved in deciding whether to begin,
prevent, continue, or terminate a pregnancy.
(4) The Roe v. Wade decision carefully balances the rights
of women to make important reproductive decisions with the
State's interest in potential life. Under Roe v. Wade and Doe
v. Bolton, the right to privacy protects a woman's decision
to choose to terminate her pregnancy prior to fetal
viability, with the State permitted to ban abortion after
fetal viability except when necessary to protect a woman's
life or health.
(5) These decisions have protected the health and lives of
women in the United States. Prior to the Roe v. Wade decision
in 1973, an estimated 1,200,000 women each year were forced
to resort to illegal abortions, despite the risk of
unsanitary conditions, incompetent treatment, infection,
hemorrhage, disfiguration, and death. Before Roe, it is
estimated that thousands of women died annually in the United
States as a result of illegal abortions.
(6) In countries in which abortion remains illegal, the
risk of maternal mortality is high. According to the World
Health Organization, of the approximately 600,000 pregnancy-
related deaths occurring annually around the world, 80,000
are associated with unsafe abortions.
(7) The Roe v. Wade decision also expanded the
opportunities for women to participate equally in society. In
1992, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (505 U.S. 833), the
Supreme Court observed that, ``[t]he ability of women to
participate equally in the economic and social life of the
Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their
reproductive lives.''.
(8) Even though the Roe v. Wade decision has stood for more
than 30 years, there are increasing threats to reproductive
health and freedom emerging from all branches and levels of
government. In 2006, South Dakota became the first State in
more than 15 years to enact a ban on abortion in nearly all
circumstances. Supporters of this ban have admitted it is an
attempt to directly challenge Roe in the courts. Other States
are considering similar bans.
(9) Legal and practical barriers to the full range of
reproductive services endanger women's health and lives.
Incremental restrictions on the right to choose imposed by
Congress and State legislatures have made access to abortion
care extremely difficult, if not impossible, for many women
across the

[[Page S3243]]

country. Currently, 87 percent of the counties in the United
States have no abortion provider.
(10) While abortion should remain safe and legal, women
should also have more meaningful access to family planning
services that prevent unintended pregnancies, thereby
reducing the need for abortion.
(11) To guarantee the protections of Roe v. Wade, Federal
legislation is necessary.
(12) Although Congress may not create constitutional rights
without amending the Constitution, Congress may, where
authorized by its enumerated powers and not prohibited by the
Constitution, enact legislation to create and secure
statutory rights in areas of legitimate national concern.
(13) Congress has the affirmative power under section 8 of
article I of the Constitution and section 5 of the 14th
amendment to the Constitution to enact legislation to
facilitate interstate commerce and to prevent State
interference with interstate commerce, liberty, or equal
protection of the laws.
(14) Federal protection of a woman's right to choose to
prevent or terminate a pregnancy falls within this
affirmative power of Congress, in part, because--
(A) many women cross State lines to obtain abortions and
many more would be forced to do so absent a constitutional
right or Federal protection;
(B) reproductive health clinics are commercial actors that
regularly purchase medicine, medical equipment, and other
necessary supplies from out-of-State suppliers; and
(C) reproductive health clinics employ doctors, nurses, and
other personnel who travel across State lines in order to
provide reproductive health services to patients.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Government.--The term ``government'' includes a branch,
department, agency, instrumentality, or official (or other
individual acting under color of law) of the United States, a
State, or a subdivision of a State.
(2) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the States,
the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
and each territory or possession of the United States.
(3) Viability.--The term ``viability'' means that stage of
pregnancy when, in the best medical judgment of the attending
physician based on the particular medical facts of the case
before the physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the
sustained survival of the fetus outside of the woman.

SEC. 4. INTERFERENCE WITH REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH PROHIBITED.

(a) Statement of Policy.--It is the policy of the United
States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose
to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal
viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability
when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.
(b) Prohibition of Interference.--A government may not--
(1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose--
(A) to bear a child;
(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or
(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where
termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the
woman; or
(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set
forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of
benefits, facilities, services, or information.
(c) Civil Action.--An individual aggrieved by a violation
of this section may obtain appropriate relief (including
relief against a government) in a civil action.

SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, or the application of such
provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be
unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, or the
application of such provision to persons or circumstances
other than those as to which the provision is held to be
unconstitutional, shall not be affected thereby.

SEC. 6. RETROACTIVE EFFECT.

This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local
statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order,
decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted,
or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of
this Act.
______

By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Pryor, and Ms. Landrieu):
S. 2594. A bill to amend the Small Business Act to reauthorize the
loan guarantee program under section 7(a) of that Act, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, every three years, our Committee reviews
the majority of the Small Business Administration's (SBA) programs to
see what's working, what's broken, and what can be improved. As ranking
member of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee currently,
and a member for more than 20 years, I have worked on many
reauthorizations. I can tell you that the SBA reauthorization process
is a great opportunity to examine programs, to work with the small
business groups and SBA's partners--those who use these programs on a
day-to-day basis--and the SBA, to ensure that they serve their intended
purpose and make the dream of a small business a reality to those who
might not be eligible for business loans through conventional lending,
don't have an MBA but need some management counseling, or need help
cutting through red tape to get government contracts.
Today I am focusing on the SBA's largest small business programs.
Specifically, I am introducing legislation to reauthorize the 7(a) Loan
Guaranty Program for three years. This bill, the ``7(a) Loan Program
Reauthorization Act of 2006,'' authorizes the SBA to back more than a
combined $58 billion in 7(a) loans to small businesses, gives borrowers
more options when choosing SBA financing, reduces program fees on
borrowers and lenders if the government charges excess fees or has
excess funding, creates an Office of Minority Small Business
Development within SBA to increase the availability of capital to
minorities, and creates a National Preferred Lenders program to
streamline the application process for exemplary lenders to operate on
a national basis and reach more borrowers.
7(a) loans are the most basic and widely used loan of the SBA
business loan programs. These loans help qualified, small businesses
obtain financing which is guaranteed for working capital, machinery and
equipment, furniture and fixtures, land and building (including
purchase, renovation and new construction), leasehold improvements, and
debt refinancing, under special conditions. The loan maturity is up to
10 years for working capital and generally up to 25 years for fixed
assets. A key concept of the 7(a) guaranty loan program is that the
loan actually comes from a commercial lender, not the government.
This excellent private/public partnership has made this program one
of the agency's most popular, with over 400,000 approved loans in the
past six years. Last year alone, almost 96,000 small businesses
received $15 billion in 7(a) loans, creating or retaining an estimated
460,000 jobs. To ensure that we continue to have enough authorization
levels to manage the increasing demand, my bill reauthorizes the 7(a)
Loan Program for three additional years at $18,500,000,000 fiscal year
07, $19,500,000,000 fiscal year 08 and $20,500,000,000 fiscal year 09.
These authorization levels ensure that program levels are sufficiently
high to enable the SBA to back the maximum amount of loans as possible
and avoid credit rationing or shutdowns.
Providing appropriate authorization levels to adequately address the
capital needs of small businesses is as important as ensuring that
eligible borrowers have access to both fixed asset financing and
working capital to address all of their small business needs.
Currently, borrowers who need working capital under the 7(a) program
and fixed asset financing through the 504 loan program are not able to
utilize both SBA loan guaranty programs to their maximum amount and are
therefore forced to choose between the two programs. To prevent a
situation where a borrower is forced to choose between getting a much-
needed facility or getting working capital, my bill specifies that the
borrower can have financing under both loan programs at the maximum
level, given they qualify for both programs. In previous years, both
7(a) and 504 loans were subsidized by appropriated funds to pay losses.
It was therefore appropriate to restrict small businesses to choose
between the two programs. However, both of these programs are now self-
supporting, and it makes no sense to continue this restriction on
borrowers.
One of our jobs on the Committee is to make sure that SBA-backed
financing remains affordable to the small business community. As I just
referenced, the 7(a) program is now self-funding. The Administration
insisted on eliminating all funding for the loans, shifting the cost to
borrowers and lenders, by imposing higher fees on them. The
administration spins this as a ``savings'' of $100 million to taxpayers
while the small business community considers this a ``tax.'' In
addition to this ``tax,'' the President's budget shows that borrowers
and lenders already pay too much in fees, generating more than $800
million in overpayments since 1992 because the government routinely
over-estimates the amount of fees needed to cover the cost

[[Page S3244]]

of the program. This is part of the reason that many of us in Congress,
on both sides of the aisle, opposed eliminating funding for the
program. This legislation seeks to address overpayments by requiring
the SBA to lower fees if borrowers and lenders pay more than is
necessary to cover the program costs or if the Congress happens to
appropriate money for the program and combined with fees there is
excess funding to cover the cost of the program. The Senate adopted
this provision, offered by me and Senator Landrieu last year, to the
fiscal year 2006 Commerce Justice State Appropriations bill.
In this reauthorization process, as I mentioned previously, I think
it is important to look at specific programs and examine whether or not
they are meeting their goals and intended mission. Part of the agency's
mission is to fill the financing gap left by the private sector.
According to a recent study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and
Business Loan Express, availability of capital remains a priority for
all small businesses, but for Hispanics and African Americans, it is
one of their top three concerns. They are still more likely to use
credit cards to finance their businesses, and they fear denial from
lenders. Knowing of this need, I was deeply disappointed to see that
although SBA's loan programs have increased lending overall, the
figures surrounding the percentage of small business loans going to
African-Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans and women have not
changed much since 2001. The administration will tell you that SBA has
been ``highly successful'' in making business loans to minority groups
facing competitive opportunity challenges. They claim that in fiscal
year 2005, almost 30 percent of 7(a) loans and about 25 percent of 504
loans were made to minority groups. However, according to the SBA's own
data, since 2001, while numbers of 7(a) loans have gone up for African
Americans, the dollars have remained at 3 percent of all money loaned.
In the 504 program, loans to women have decreased from 19 percent in
number to 15 percent, and dropped from 16 percent to 14 percent in
dollars. In the Microloan program, African Americans received 28
percent of the total number of microloans made in 2001 as compared to
only 21 percent of the total number of loans made in 2005. Their
microloan dollars have also decreased from $7.1 million to $5.7 million
in 2005. Native Americans went from 2 percent of the total number of
microloans made in 2001 to less than one percent--a mere .93 percent--
in 2005.

These statistics are of great concern and demonstrate that the SBA
has not been highly successful in playing an active role in fostering
and encouraging robust entrepreneurial activity and small business
ownership amongst these minority groups. The stagnant percentage of
small business loans in these communities represents a failure of this
Administration to provide an alternative means of obtaining capital to
our underserved communities where funding has not been available
throughout conventional lending methods.
To break this trend and increase the proportion of small business
loans to minorities, and the percentage of loans to African Americans,
Hispanics, and Asians relative to their share of the population, my
bill creates an Office of Minority Small Business Development at the
SBA, similar to offices devoted to business development of veterans and
women and rural areas. In charge of the office will be the Associate
Administrator for Minority Small Business and Capital Ownership
Development with expanded authority and an annual budget to carry out
its mission.
Currently this position is limited to carrying out the policies and
programs of SBA's contracting programs required under sections 7(j) and
8(a) of the Small Business Act. To make sure that minorities are
getting a great share of loan dollars, venture capital investments,
counseling, and contracting, this bill expands its authority and duties
to work with and monitor the outcomes for programs under Capital
Access, Entrepreneurial Development, and Government Contracting. It
also requires the head of the Office to work with SBA's partners, trade
associations, and business groups to identify more effective ways to
market to minority business owners, and to work with the head of Field
Operations to ensure that district offices have staff and resources to
market to minorities. The latter is important because when SBA
implemented its extensive workforce transformation plans several years
ago, it eliminated lending-related jobs with a partial justification
that remaining staff would be trained to do outreach and marketing to
the community. However, district offices are not provided with
sufficient funds or resources to do the job.
In addition to setting sufficient program levels, giving our
borrowers maximum loan options, reaching the underrepresented, and
lowering fees to our borrowers, my bill makes great improvements in our
lender operations. Lenders are key to providing these loans to small
business borrowers throughout our nation. An exceptional lender in the
7(a) program will often become a ``preferred lender,'' with the
authority to approve, close, service and liquidate loans without the
lender obtaining the prior specific approval of the agency. SBA
requires that lenders request preferred lender status in each of the 70
districts it desires to operate. There are many problems with this
system, and this bill streamlines and makes uniform the process, an
advantage to borrowers, lenders and the SBA.
This preferred lender problem is not a new issue. During our last
reauthorization in 2003, lenders complained that applying for lending
autonomy in each of the 70 district office and branches is
administratively burdensome, both for them and for the Agency staff,
and that some district offices have taken advantage of the power to
approve or disapprove lenders when they apply for this special lending
status. I was very disappointed that this issue was not resolved in our
last reauthorization. My bill attempts to alleviate this administrative
burden on lenders and SBA staff who must process the application. My
bill creates a National Preferred Lenders Program to allow lenders that
have already demonstrated proficiency as a preferred lender the
authority to operate in any state where it desires to make loans. To
ensure that national preferred lenders are proficient and experienced,
this bill requires the Administrator, no later than 60 days after
enactment, to establish eligibility criteria for national preferred
lenders but suggests that the criteria established include several
things--consideration of whether the lender has experience as a
preferred lender in not fewer than 5 district offices of the
Administration for a minimum of 3 years in each territory, uniform
written policies on the 7(a) loan program, including centralized loan
approval, servicing, and liquidation functions and processes that are
satisfactory to the administration.
If a national preferred lender fails to meet the eligibility
requirements established by the Administrator, the lender shall be
notified of this deficiency and allowed a reasonable time for
correction. Failure to correct the deficiency may result in suspension
or revocation as a national preferred lender.
Last, my legislation directs the SBA to establish a simple and
straightforward alternative size standard for business loan applicants
under section 7(a), similar to what is already available for borrowers
in the 504 loan program, which utilizes maximum tangible net worth and
average net income as an alternative to the use of industry standards.
Currently, in order to be eligible for an SBA business loan, the
borrower must meet the definition of small businesses. Pursuant to the
Small Business Act, SBA has promulgated size standards by industry
utilizing the North American Industry Classification System. The SBA
table based on this system is over 20 pages, single-spaced, which has
made this size standard very complicated for lenders to utilize.
In closing, I want to commend the community of 7(a) lenders for the
tens of thousands of borrowers they reach every year, and for working
with us to understand how to improve the program to attract more
lenders and reach more borrowers. I hope that the Committee will act on
this bill and other similar reauthorization bills before the current
laws governing the 7(a) loan program expire on September 30, 2006. I
ask unanimous consent that my remarks be printed in the Record.

[[Page S3245]]

______

By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Pryor):
S. 2595. A bill to amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to
modernize the treatment of development companies; to the Committee on
Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today, as Ranking Democrat on the Committee
on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am introducing a
reauthorization bill for the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 504
Loan Guaranty Program. This legislation goes beyond simply
reauthorizing the 504 loan program. Not only does this bill provide
adequate authorization levels in the 504 loan program, but it also
takes on important oversight and accountability issues pertaining to
the operation of Certified Development Companies (CDC). The issues that
I will present in detail below are well overdue and failure on
Congress's behalf to deal with them before the end of the fiscal year
when the program expires will shortchange our borrowers, and ultimately
our communities who reap the benefits of the local economic development
that the 504 loan program is intended to provide.
For more than 20 years, the 504 loan program has provided long-term
financing for growing businesses with long-term (up to 20 years),
fixed-rate financing for major fixed assets, such as purchasing land
and making improvements, including existing buildings, grading, street
improvements, utilities, parking lots and landscaping; construction of
new facilities, or modernizing, renovating or converting existing
facilities; or purchasing long-term machinery and equipment. The 504
loan is made through a collaboration between the Certified Development
Company (which provides 40 percent of the financing), a private sector
lender (covering up to 50 percent of the financing) and a contribution
of at least 10 percent from the small business being helped. This
program is a national leader in federal economic development finance
programs and demonstrates it through, creating or retaining over 1.4
million jobs, backing more than $25 billion in loans, and leveraging
over $30 billion in private investment.
These incredible returns to our community could not be possible
without the solid mission of the program that drives the types of
projects and borrowers it serves. This program was not established to
simply make loans--it was established to promote local economic
development and to create jobs. I cannot think of another federal
economic development program that has created over 605,000 jobs, as the
504 program has done. Last year alone, the 504 program created over
145,000 jobs. As the demand for 504 loans continues to grow, it is more
important than ever to reaffirm the mission of the 504 program and to
ensure that the 504 program is reauthorized at adequate levels to meet
this growth.
To address this issue, my bill reauthorizes the 504 Loan Program for
three additional years at $8,500,000,000, fiscal year 07,
$9,500,000,000 fiscal year 08, and $10,500,000,000, fiscal year 09.
These levels are based on the current pace of program growth to ensure
that there is more than adequate authorization. The fiscal year 06 504
demand is projected to exceed $7 billion, and the last 3 years have
shown growth rates of 28 percent, 26 percent, and 26 percent. A low
authorization level would either force the SBA to shut down the program
or to ration credit throughout the year to avoid a shut-down.
As I mentioned previously, this bill goes beyond simply reauthorizing
the 504 loan program for an additional three years. It makes some much-
needed changes to the structure of our CDCs, which are responsible for
the delivery of this program and which are essential to the success of
the 504 loan program.
Year after year, I have heard about the dangers that structural
changes pose to the CDC industry and the 504 loan program in
maintaining the mission of economic development. One of the major
changes experienced by CDCs includes the centralization of all 504 loan
processing, loan servicing and liquidation functions from 70 SBA
district offices to one or two centers in the country. This has
resulted in a huge backlog, estimated at 900 loans waiting to be
liquidated. This backlog results in a loss of revenue through delaying
or completely writing off defaulted loans. This has the potential to
drive up subsidy costs of the program and therefore fees on borrowers,
CDCs and lenders. This bill puts forward a solution to this issue by
decentralizing liquidation functions and allowing CDCs, if they choose,
to foreclose and liquidate defaulted loans or to contract with a
qualified third-party to perform foreclosure and liquidation of
defaulted loans in its portfolio. However, CDCs are not required to
liquidate until SBA has come up with a program to compensate and
reimburse them for all expenses pertaining to foreclosure and
liquidation. The expenses would be approved in advance by the
Administrator or on an emergency basis.
The biggest structural change that has had a tremendous impact on our
not-for-profit CDCs is the ability to expand operations into multiple
states. This structural change, in conjunction with the growing demand
for 504 loans and CDC operations in providing these loans to small
businesses, requires Congress to set a statutory course that preserves
the local economic development intent and mission of the program
through accountability measures. The 504 program was not created for
CDCs to expand operations and simply create revenue from one state to
another. CDCs are more than lenders and should not act like for-profit
banks. My bill ensures that local communities continue to be the main
focus of CDCs by requiring that the 25 members of their board and board
of directors be residents of the area of operations. In addition, CDCs
will be required to annually submit to the SBA a report on the use of
all excess funds and local economic development activities in each
state of operation. This ensures that the members engage, invest, and
are held accountable to the communities they serve.
In addition to preserving and growing the 504 loan program, I think
it is very important to ensure that low-income communities have access
to 504 loans. As you may know, in 2000 Congress enacted the New Markets
Tax Credit program to facilitate private sector investment in low-
income communities.
Theoretically, the program was designed to encourage private
investors who may never have considered investing in low-income
communities to do so, thereby attracting new sources of private capital
for a variety of projects, including retail, childcare and primary
healthcare centers, which in turn attracts jobs, services and
additional opportunities to areas that have historically had a
difficult time sustaining economic development. My bill creates a new
public policy goal for the ``expansion of businesses in low-income
communities'' and defines low-income areas as those areas which would
be eligible for new market tax credits. Under public policy goals, a
borrower can get a higher loan than the standard limit of $1.5 million.
For example, a borrower could receive a 504 loan of up to $2 million if
the proceeds will be directed toward this new public policy goal, or
any of the currently established eight public policy goals. It is my
hope that this incentive will increase the number of 504 loans in low-
income communities and therefore build wealth, economic security, and
employment opportunities which benefit the entire surrounding
community.
I want to thank Senator Pryor for his sponsorship of this
legislation, and thank the many members of the 504 community for
working with us to identify ways to make this program better than ever.
I look forward to working with them to enact this legislation before
the fiscal year expires on September 30, 2006, and ask unanimous
consent that my statement be included in the Record.
______

By Mr. KERRY:
S.J. Res. 33. A joint resolution to provide for a strategy for
successfully empowering a new unity government in Iraq; to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, 39 years ago this week Dr. Martin Luther
King gave a speech at the Riverside Church in New York about the war in
Vietnam. He began with these words:

I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because
my conscience leaves me no other choice.

His message was clear. Despite the difficulty of opposing the
government's policy during time of war, he said, ``We must speak with
all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must
speak.''

[[Page S3246]]

I am here today to speak about Iraq. There should be humility enough
to go around for a Congress that shares responsibility for this war. I
believe the time has come again when, as Dr. King said, we must move
past indecision to action.
I have many times visited the Vietnam Memorial Wall, as many Vietnam
veterans have. When you walk down the path of either side of that wall,
east and west of the panels, you walk down to the center of the wall
where it comes together in a V. That V represents both the beginning of
the war and the end of the war because the names start at that V and go
all the way up one end, east, and then they come back from the west.
I remember standing there once after reading ``A Bright Shining
Lie,'' by Neil Sheehan, Robert McNamara's memoirs, and many other
histories of that war. One cannot help but feel the enormity of the
loss, of the immorality that our leaders knew that the strategy was
wrong and that almost half the names were added to that wall after the
time that people knew our strategy would not work. It was immoral then
and it would be immoral now to engage in the same delusion with respect
to our policy in Iraq.
Obviously, every single one of us would prefer to see democracy in
Iraq. We want democracy in the whole Middle East. The simple reality
is, Iraqis must want it as much as we do, and Iraqis must embrace it.
If the Iraqi leadership is not ready to make the changes and the
compromises that democracy requires, our soldiers, no matter how
valiant--and they have been valiant--can't get from a humvee or a
helicopter.
The fact is, our soldiers have done a stunning job. I was recently in
Iraq with Senator Warner and Senator Stevens. I have been there
previously. No one can travel there and talk to our soldiers and not be
impressed by their commitment to the mission, by their sacrifice, by
their desire to have something good come out of this, and by the
remarkable contribution they have made to give Iraqis the opportunity
to create a democratic future for their country. Our soldiers have done
their job. It is time for the newly elected Iraqi leadership to do
theirs. It is time for America's political leaders to do theirs.
President Bush says we can't lose our nerve in Iraq. It takes more
nerve to respond to mistakes and to adjust a policy that is going wrong
than it does to stubbornly continue down the wrong path.
Last week, Secretary Rice acknowledged ``thousands'' of mistakes in
Iraq. Amazingly, nobody has been held accountable for those mistakes.
But our troops have paid the price, and our troops pay the price every
single day. Yet the President continues to insist on a vague and
counterproductive strategy that will keep U.S. forces in Iraq
indefinitely.
I accept my share of responsibility for the war in Iraq. As I said in
2004, knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war, and I
certainly wouldn't have done it the way the President did. My
frustration is that many of us all along the way have offered
alternatives to the President. Countless numbers of Senators,
Republican and Democrat alike, have publicly offered alternative ways
of trying to achieve our goals in Iraq.
I have listened to my colleagues, Senator Feingold, Senator Biden,
Senator Hagel, the Presiding Officer, and others all talk about ways in
which we could do better. But all of these, almost all of them without
exception, have been left by the wayside without any real discussion,
without any real dialog, without any real effort to see if we could
find a common ground. My frustration is that we keep offering
alternatives.
In 2003, in 2004, 2005, 2006, year after year, we put them on the
table, but they get ignored and then we get further in the hole, the
situation gets worse, and we are left responding, trying to come back
to a worse situation than the one we were responding to in the first
place. And we keep putting out possibilities, and the possibilities
keep being left on the sidelines.
Time after time, this administration has ignored the best advice of
the best experts of the country, whether they be our military experts
or former civilian leaders of other administrations or our most
experienced voices on the Committee on Armed Services and Foreign
Relations Committee of the U.S. House and Senate.

The administration is fond of saying that we shouldn't look back,
that recrimination only helps our enemies, that we have to deal with
the situation on the ground now. Well, we do have to deal with the
situation on the ground now, but we have to deal with it in a way that
honors the suggestions and ideas of a lot of other people who have
concerns about our forces on the ground and our families at home and
our budget and our reputation in the world and our need to respond to
Afghanistan, North Korea, and Iran.
Frankly, accountability and learning from past mistakes is the only
way to improve both policies and institutions. Let me, for the moment,
go along with this idea, the administration's idea. Let me focus on the
here and now and let's face that reality honestly and let's act
accordingly.
You have to live in a fantasy world to believe we are on the brink of
domestic peace and a pluralistic democracy in Iraq. One has to be blind
to the facts to argue that the prospects for success are so great they
outweigh the terrible costs of the President's approach. And you have
to be incapable of admitting failure not to be able to face up to the
need to change course now. Yes, change course now.
Our soldiers on the ground have learned a lot of terrible lessons in
Iraq. All you have to do is talk to some of the soldiers who have
returned, as many of us have. It is time those of us responsible for
the policies of our country learn those lessons. It is clear the
administration's litany of mistakes has reduced what we can reasonably
hope to accomplish. Any reasonable, honest observer--and there are many
in the Senate who have gone over to Iraq and have come back with these
views--knows that the entire definition of this mission has changed and
the expectations of what we can get out of this mission have changed.
I, for one, will not sit idly by and watch while American soldiers
give their lives for a policy that is not working. Let me say it
plainly. Withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq over the course of the year
in a timely schedule is actually necessary to give democracy the best
chance to succeed, and it is vital to America's national security
interests.
Five months ago, I went to Georgetown University. I gave a speech
where I said that we were then entering the make-or-break period, a
make-or-break 5-month, 6-month period in Iraq. I said the President
must change course and hold Iraqis accountable or Congress should
insist on a change in policy. And I set a goal then, back in November,
that we should try to reduce American combat forces and withdraw them
by the end of this year.
The situation on the ground has now changed for the worse since then.
In fact, we are now in the third war in Iraq in as many years. The
first war was against Saddam Hussein and his alleged weapons of mass
destruction. The second war was against Jihadist terrorists whom the
administration said it was better to fight over there than over here.
And now we find our troops in the middle of a low-grade civil war that
could explode into a full civil war at any time.
While the events in Iraq have changed for the worse, the President
has not changed course for the better. It is time for those of us in
Congress who share responsibilities constitutionally for our policy to
stand up and change that course. We have a constitutional
responsibility, and we have a moral responsibility not to sit on the
sidelines while young Americans are in harm's way.
That is why today I am introducing legislation that will hold the
Iraqis accountable and make the goal of withdrawing the most American
forces a reality. I personally believe that most of those forces could
be and should be out of Iraq by the end of the year. This war, in the
words of our own generals, cannot be won militarily. It can only be won
politically.
General Casey said, of our large military presence, it ``feeds the
notion of occupation'' and it ``extends the amount of time that it will
take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant.''
That is General Casey saying that the large force of American
presence in

[[Page S3247]]

Iraq contributes to the occupation and extends the amount of time.
Zbigniew Brzezinski put it:

The U.S. umbrella, which is in effect designed to stifle
these wars but it is so poor that it perpetuates them, in a
sense keeps these wars alive . . . and [is] probably
unintentionally actually intensifying them.

Richard Nixon's Secretary of Defense, Melvin Laird, breaking a 30-
year silence, summed it up simply:

Our presence is what feeds the insurgency.

The bottom line is that as long as American forces remain in large
numbers, enforcing the status quo, Americans will be killed and maimed
in a crossfire of vicious conflict that they are powerless to end. We
pay for the President's reluctance to face reality in both American
dollars and in too many lives. American families pay in the loss of
limb and the loss of loved ones.
I don't think we should tolerate what is happening in Iraq today. We
can no longer tolerate the political games currently being played by
Iraqi politicians in a war-torn Baghdad. No American soldier, not one
American soldier, should be sacrificed for the unwillingness of Iraqi
politicians to compromise and form a unity government.
We are now almost 5 months since the election. What is happening is
the daily game being played by Iraqis who listen to the President say
we will be here to the end. There is no sense of urgency, there is no
sense of impending need to make a decision. The result is they just go
on bickering and they go on playing for advantage while our troops
drive by the next IED and the next soldier returns to Walter Reed or to
Bethesda without arms and limbs.
Given the recent increase in deadly sectarian strife, Iraq urgently
needs a strong unity government to prevent a full-fledged civil war
from breaking out and becoming the failed state that all of us have
wanted to avoid. I believe the current situation is actually allowing
them to go down the road toward that sectarian strife rather than
stopping them.
Thus far, step by step, Iraqis have only responded to deadlines. It
took a deadline to transfer authority to the provisional government. It
took a deadline for the first election to take place. It took a
deadline for the referendum on the Constitution. It took a deadline for
the most recent election. It is time for another deadline, and that
deadline is to say to them that they have to come together and pull
together and put together a government or our troops are going to
withdraw. And under circumstances over a period of time, we will
withdraw in order to put Iraq up on its own two feet.
Iraqi politicians should be told in unmistakable language: You have
until May 15 to put together an effective unity government or we will
immediately withdraw our military.
I know some colleagues and other people listening will say: Wait a
minute. You mean we are going to automatically withdraw our military if
they don't pull it together?
The answer is: You bet we ought to do that. Because there isn't one
American soldier who ought to be giving up life or limb for the
procrastination and unwillingness of Iraqis who have been given an
extraordinary opportunity by those soldiers to take hold of democracy
and who are ignoring it and playing for advantage. We all know that
after the last elections, the momentum was lost by squabbling interim
leaders. Everybody sat around and said, coming up to this election, the
one thing we can't do is allow the momentum to be lost. Guess what. It
has been lost. It has been squandered, again. We are sitting there with
occasional visits, occasional speeches but without the kind of
sustained diplomacy necessary to provide a resolution. It has gone on
for too long, again.
If Iraqis aren't willing to build a unity government in 5 months,
then how long does it take and what does it take? If they are not
willing to do it, they are not willing to do it. It is that simple. The
civil war will only get worse. And if they are not willing to do it, it
is because there is such a fundamental intransigence that we haven't
broken, that civil war, in fact, becomes inevitable, and our troops
will be forced to leave anyway.
The fact is, we have no choice but to get tough and to ratchet up the
pressure. We should immediately accelerate the redeployment of American
forces to rear guard, garrisoned status for security backup, training,
and emergency response. Special operations against al-Qaida in Iraq
should be initiated on hard intelligence leads only.
If the Iraqi leaders finally do their job, which I believe you have a
better chance of getting them to do if you give them a timetable, then
we have to agree on a schedule for leaving, withdrawing American combat
forces by the end of the year. The only troops that remain should be
those critical to finishing the job of standing up Iraqi security
forces.
Such an agreement will have positive benefits in Iraq. It will
empower and legitimize the new leadership and the Iraqi people. It will
expedite the process of getting the Iraqis to assume a larger role of
running their own country. And it will undermine support for the
insurgency among the now 80 percent of Iraqis who want U.S. troops to
leave. In short, it will give the new Iraqi Government the best chance
to succeed in holding the country together while democratic
institutions can evolve.
This deadline makes sense when you look at the responsibilities that
Iraqis should have assumed by then. Formation of a unity government
would constitute a major milestone in the transfer of political
responsibility to the Iraqis. Even the President has said that
responsibility for security in the majority of the country should be
able to be transferred to the Iraqis by this time. If the President
believes that it should be able to be transferred to the Iraqis by this
time, why not push that eventuality and make it a reality? By the end
of the year, our troops will have done as much as they possibly can to
give Iraqis the chance to build a democracy. I again remind my
colleagues, we are still going to have the ability to have over-the-
horizon response for emergency, as well as over-the-horizon response to
al-Qaida. And we will have the ability to continue to train those last
forces to make sure they are in a position to stand up for Iraq.
The key to this transition is a long overdue engagement in serious
and sustained diplomacy. I want to say a word about this. I am not
offering this plan in a vacuum. Critical to the achievement of all of
our goals in Iraq is real diplomacy. Starting with the leadup to the
war, our diplomatic efforts in Iraq have ranged from the indifferent to
the indefensible. History shows that effective diplomacy requires
persistent hands-on engagement from the highest levels of America's
leadership. Top officials in the first Bush administration worked
directly and tirelessly to put together a real coalition before the
first Gulf War, and President Clinton himself took personal
responsibility at Camp David for bringing the Israelis and Palestinians
together and leading the comprehensive effort to resolve the conflict
in the Middle East. This type of major diplomatic initiative has proven
successful in many places in American history.

Most recently, in 1995, there was a brutal civil war in Bosnia
involving Serbs, Croats, and Muslims. Faced with a seemingly
intractable stalemate in the midst of horrific ethnic cleansing, the
Clinton administration took action--direct, personal, engaged action.
Led by Richard Holbrooke, they brought leaders of the Bosnian parties
together in Dayton, OH, with representatives from the European Union,
Russia, and Britain to hammer out a peace agreement. NATO and the
United Nations were given a prominent role in implementing what became
known as the Dayton Accords.
In contrast, this President Bush has done little more than deliver
political speeches, while his cronies in the White House and outside
blame the news media for the mess the administration has created in
Iraq. We keep hearing: They are not telling the full story. They are
not telling the story.
Secretary of State Rice's brief surprise visit to Iraq a few days ago
pales in comparison to the real shuttle diplomacy that was practiced by
predecessors such as James Baker and Henry Kissinger. Given what is at
stake, it is long since time to engage in that. I can remember Henry
Kissinger going from one capital to the next capital, back and forth,
engaged, pulling people together. Jim Baker did the same thing.

[[Page S3248]]

There was a genuine and real effort to leverage the full prestige and
full power of the United States behind a goal. That is absent here.
Ambassador Khalilzad is a good man, and he has done a terrific job,
almost by himself, left almost to his own devices. That is not the way
to succeed. Given what is at stake, it is past time to engage in
diplomacy that matches the effort of our soldiers on the ground. We
should immediately bring the leaders of the Iraqi factions together at
a Dayton-like summit that includes our allies, Iraq's neighbors,
members of the Arab League, and the United Nations. The fact is, a true
national compact is needed to bring about a political solution to the
insurgency. That is how you end the sectarian violence. Our soldiers
going on patrol in a striker or a humvee, walking through communities
will not end this violence. Our generals have told us, it can only be
ended politically. Yet where is the kind of political effort that our
Nation has seen in history now, trying to effect what our soldiers have
created an opportunity to effect through their sacrifice?
Iraqis have to reach a comprehensive agreement that includes security
guarantees, disbanding the militias, and ultimately, though not
necessarily at this conference, confronting some of the questions of
the Constitution. All of the parties must reach agreement on a process
for reviving reconstruction efforts and securing Iraq's borders. Our
troops cannot be left hanging out there without that kind of effort to
protect them.
At this summit, Shiite religious leaders must agree to rein in their
militias and to commit to disbanding them. They also have to work with
Iraqi political leaders to ensure that the leadership of the Interior
Ministry and the police force under its control is nonsectarian. Shiite
and Kurdish leaders must make concessions necessary to address Sunni
concerns about federalism and equitable distribution of oil revenues.
There is no way the Sunnis are going to suddenly disband or stop the
insurgency without some kind of adequate guarantee of their security
and their participation in the process. That was obvious months ago. It
is even more obvious today. It still remains an open question.
The Sunnis have to accept the reality that they will no longer
dominate Iraq. Until a sufficient compromise is hammered out, a Sunni
base cannot be created that isolates the hard-core Baathists and
jihadists and defuses the insurgency itself. We must work with Iraqis
at the summit to convince Iraq's neighbors that they can no longer
stand on the sidelines while Iraq teeters on the edge of a civil war
that could bring chaos to the entire region. Where they can help the
process of forming a government, they need to step up. And for my
colleagues who suggest that somehow withdrawing American forces will
put that region at greater risk, I say ``no.'' I say that an over-the-
horizon deployment, a deployment in Kuwait and elsewhere, diffusing the
insurgency, and an adequate effort to diplomatically pull together this
kind of summit is the only way to diffuse the insurgency and ultimately
strengthen the region.
The administration must also work with Iraqi leaders in seeking a
multinational force to help protect Iraq's borders until finally a
national army of Iraq has developed the capacity to do that itself.
Frankly, such a force, if sanctioned by the United Nations Security
Council, could attract participation by Iraq's neighbors, countries
such as India and others, that would be a critical step in stemming the
tide of insurgents and of encouraging capital to flow into Iraq.
To be credible with the Iraqi people, the new government must deliver
goods and services at all levels. It is absolutely stunning--I don't
know how many Americans are even aware of the fact--that today, several
years later, electricity production is below where it was before the
war. It is at 4,000 megawatts compared to the 4,500 before the war.
Crude oil production has declined from a prewar level of 2.5 million
barrels per day to 1.9 million barrels per day. We were told that oil
was going to pay for this war. That has to change. Countries that have
promised money for reconstruction, particularly of Sunni areas, haven't
paid up yet. The money is not on the table.
We can also do our part on the ground. Our own early reconstruction
efforts were--now known to everybody--poorly planned and grossly
mismanaged. But as I saw on a recent trip to Iraq, the efforts of our
civilian military provisional reconstruction teams, which have the
skills and capacity to strengthen governance and institution building
around the country, are beginning to take hold. We need to stand up
more of those teams as fast as possible. If we do that in the same
context as we find the political resolution, then you have a chance.
We must also continue to turn the job of policing the streets and
providing security over to Iraqi forces. That means giving our generals
the tools they need to finish training an Iraqi police force that is
trusted and respected on the street by the end of the year. It also
means finishing the training of Iraqi security forces with U.S. troops
acting only on the basis of hard intelligence to combat terrorist
threats.
The withdrawal of American forces from Iraq is necessary not only to
give democracy in Iraq the best chance to succeed, it is also vital to
our own national security interests.
We need to pay more attention to our own vital national security
interests. We will never be as safe as we ought to be if Iraq continues
to distract us from the most important war we need to win--the war on
Osama bin Laden, al-Qaida, and the terrorists who are resurfacing even
in Afghanistan.
To make it clear, despite everything this administration has said,
today, al-Qaida, and the Taliban, even, are more dangerous in northwest
Pakistan and northeast Afghanistan than Iraq is to us at this moment in
time. There is a greater threat from al-Qaida, which has dispersed
cells and through its training and abilities to organize, in
Afghanistan than in the place that is consuming most of America's
forces and money.
The way to defeat al-Qaida is not by serving as their best
recruitment tool. Even Brent Scowcroft, George H. W. Bush's National
Security Adviser, has joined the many experts who agree that the war in
Iraq actually feeds terrorism and increases the potential for terrorist
attacks against the United States. The results speak for themselves:
The number of significant terrorist attacks around the world increased
from 175 in 2003 to 651 in 2004, and it has continued to increase in
2005.
The President keeps talking about al-Qaida's intent to take over
Iraq. I have not met anybody in Iraq--none of the leaders on either
side, not Kurds, the Shia, or Sunni--who believes a few thousand, at
most--and by many estimates, less than a thousand--foreign jihadists
are a genuine threat to forcibly take over a country of 25 million
people. And while mistake after mistake by this administration has
actually turned Iraq into the breeding ground for al-Qaida that it was
not before the war, large numbers of United States troops are not the
key to crushing these terrorists.
In fact, Iraqis have begun to make clear their own unwillingness to
tolerate foreign jihadists. Every Iraqi I talked to said to me: When we
get control and start moving forward, we will deal with the jihadists.
They don't want them on Iraqi soil, and they have increasingly turned
on these brutal foreign killers who are trying to foment a civil war
among Iraqis. This process will only be complete when Iraqis have taken
full responsibility for their own future, and resistance to a perceived
occupation no longer provides them any common cause with jihadists.
As General Anthony Zinni said on Sunday, building up intelligence-
gathering capability from Iraqis is essential to defeating the
insurgency. He said:

We're not fighting the Waffen S.S. here. They can be
policed up if the people turn against them. We haven't won
the hearts and minds yet.

Once again, I remind my colleagues, the hearts and minds of the
Iraqis will be more susceptible to being won when American forces are
not there in the way they are now, in a way that can be used as the
recruitment tool that it has been, when 80 percent of the Iraqi people
suggest that American forces ought to leave.
After the bulk of U.S. forces have been withdrawn, I believe it is
essential to keep a rapid reaction force over the horizon. That force
can be over the horizon within the desert itself, or it can

[[Page S3249]]

be in Kuwait, and that can be used to act against terrorist enclaves.
Our air power--the air power we used to police two-thirds of the no-fly
zone in Iraq before the war--will always ensure our ability to bring
overwhelming force to bear to protect the U.S. interests in the region.
The bottom line is that working together with Iraqis from inside and
outside Iraq, we can prosecute the war against al-Qaida in Iraq more
effectively than we are today.
Withdrawing U.S. troops will also enable us to more effectively
combat threats around the world. But winning the war on terror requires
more than the killing we have seen from 3 years of combat. The fact is
that just taking out terrorists, as our troops have been doing, is not
going to end the flow of terrorists who are recruited, for all of the
reasons that we understand. The cooperation critical to lasting victory
in the region is going to be enhanced when Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo,
civil chaos, and mistake after mistake in Iraq no longer deplete
America's moral authority within the region.
This is also key to allowing us to repair the damage that flag
officers fear has been done to our Armed Forces. I know my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle--members of the Armed Services Committee
and Intelligence Committee--have heard from flag officers in private
about what is happening to the Armed Forces of our country. We know it
will take billions of dollars to reset the equipment that has been
lost, damaged, or worn out from 3 years of combat. In the National
Guard alone, units across the country have only 34 percent of their
authorized equipment, including just 14 percent of the chemical
decontamination equipment they need. That is a chilling prospect if
they are ever asked to respond to a terrorist incident
involving weapons of mass destruction.

The fact is the Army is stretched too thin. Soldiers and brigades are
being deployed more frequently and longer than the Army believes is
best in order to continue to attract the best recruits. Recruiting
standards have been changed and recruitment is suffering. The Army fell
6,700 recruits short of their needs in 2005--the largest shortfall
since 1979. Recruitment is suffering today. Not only are American
troops not getting leadership equal to their sacrifice on the civilian
side, but our generals are not getting enough troops to accomplish
their mission of keeping the country safe.
The fact is that in the specialties--special forces, translators,
intelligence officers, for the Marines, for the Army, for the National
Guard--our recruitments are below the levels they ought to be.
Withdrawing from Iraq will also enable us to strengthen our efforts
to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Iran, the
world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, is absolutely delighted
with our presence in Iraq. Why? Because it advances their goals,
keeping us otherwise occupied, and it allows them to make mischief in
Iraq itself at their choice. Their President is so emboldened that he
has openly called for the destruction of Israel, while defying the
international community's demands to stop developing its nuclear
weapons capability. Could that have happened prior to our being bogged
down the way we are?
North Korea has felt at liberty to ignore the six-party talks, while
it continues to stockpile more nuclear weapons material.
Any effort to be stronger in dealing with the nuclear threat from
Iran and North Korea is incomplete without an exit from Iraq. It will
also enable us to more effectively promote democracy in places such as
Russia, which is more than content to see us bogged down while
President Putin steadily rolls back democratic reforms.
China benefits from us throwing hundreds of billions of dollars into
Iraq instead of into economic competition and job creation here at
home. Our long-term security requires putting the necessary resources
into building our economy and a workforce that can compete and win in
the age of globalization. We cannot do as much as we need to--not
nearly as much as we need to--while the war in Iraq is draining our
treasury.
Finally, we have not provided anywhere near the resources necessary
to keep our homeland safe. Katrina showed us in the most graphic way
possible that 5 years after 9/11, we are woefully unprepared to handle
a natural disaster that we know is coming a week in advance, let alone
a catastrophic terrorist attack we have no notice of. Removing the
financial strain of Iraq will free up funds for America's homeland
defense.
The time has come for the administration to acknowledge the realities
that the American people are increasingly coming to understand--the
realities in Iraq and the requirements of America's national security.
Stop telling us that terrible things will happen if we get tough with
the Iraqis, when terrible things happen every single day because we are
not tough enough. If we don't change course and hold the Iraqis
accountable now, I guarantee you it will get worse.
Ignoring all of the warnings, and ignoring history itself, in a
flourish of ideological excess, this administration has managed to make
the ancient cradle of civilization look a lot like Vietnam. But there
is a path forward if we start making the right decisions.
As Dr. King said so many years ago:

The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it
otherwise, we must choose in this crucial moment of human
history.

Now is the moment of choice for Iraq, for America, and for this
Congress.

____________________