[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 87 (Thursday, June 29, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6788-S6810]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
S. 3598. A bill to clarify the effective date of the modification of
treatment for retirement annuity purposes of part-time service before
April 7, 1986, of certain Department of Veterans Affairs health-care
professionals; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation
to correct an unfair decision that hurts
[[Page S6789]]
aging, retired VA nurses. This legislation is designed to correct a
problem from a bill we passed in 2001, to help VA nurses. That
legislation improved nurses' pensions, and Congress intended it to be
retroactive. Unfortunately, administrative officials took a very narrow
view of that law. Currently VA nurses who retired between 1986 and
2002, do not get the full pension benefits as current retirees do.
In the 1980s, VA aggressively recruited nurses to fill a huge need at
VA medical centers by promising full retirement for part-time work.
Sadly, the VA and the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, does not
want to fulfill that promise. This legislation would explicitly require
the Federal Government to honor its commitment to our retired VA
nurses. Pension benefits are a vital promise. It is disturbing when we
do not fulfill our obligations, and we simply must correct this error.
Nurses play a critical role in our health care system, including the
VA. Recruiting and retaining nurses is important, and this pension
shortfall does not help. It is time to deliver full pension benefits to
the nurses who cared for our veterans.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Domenici):
S. 3599. A bill to establish the Prehistoric Trackways National
Monument in the State of New Mexico; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation
today to protect a site of worldwide scientific significance in the
Robledo Mountains in New Mexico. The bill, which is cosponsored by my
colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, would create a national
monument to preserve and allow for the continuing scientific
investigation of a remarkable ``megatracksite'' of 280,000,000 year-old
fossils and trackways.
The vast tidal mudflats that made up much of modern New Mexico 60
million years before the first dinosaurs preserved the marks of some of
the earliest life on our planet to make its way out of the ocean. The
fossil record of this time is scattered throughout New Mexico but,
until this discovery, there were few places where the range of life and
their interactions with each other could be studied.
Las Cruces resident and paleontologist Jerry MacDonald first brought
the find to light in 1988 when he revealed that there was far more to
be found in the Robledos than the occasional fossil that local
residents had been seeing for years. The trackways he hauled out on his
back, some over 20 feet long, showed that there was a great deal of
useful information buried in the rock there. The trackways include
footprints of numerous amphibians, reptiles, and insects, including
previously unknown species. These trackways help complete the puzzle of
how these ancient creatures lived in a way that we cannot understand
from only studying their fossilized bones.
Senator Domenici and Representative Skeen joined me in sponsoring
legislation, passed in 1990, to protect the area and study its
significance. In 1994, the Bureau of Land Management, along with
scientists from the New Mexico Museum of Natural History & Science, the
University of Colorado, and the Smithsonian Institution, completed
their study and documented the importance of the find. Particularly
owing to the quality of the specimens and the wide range of animals
that had left their imprint there, the study found that the site was of
immense scientific value. The study concluded, in part, ``[t]he
diversity, abundance and quality of the tracks in the Robledo Mountains
is far greater than at any other known tracksite or aggregation of
tracksites.'' The study also described the site as containing ``the
most scientifically significant Early Permian tracksites'' in the
world. However, despite the recognition of the significance of the
site, it has remained essentially unprotected, and many of the
trackways and fossils have been lost or damaged. This bill would take
the next logical step to follow up from these efforts and set in place
permanent protections and allow for scientific investigation of these
remarkable resources.
In addition to permanently protecting the fossils, the bill would
authorize the continuation of existing uses in the area, such as
motorized recreation, as long as the trackway resources aren't harmed.
The bill would also help ensure that local residents get the
opportunity to see these unique specimens and participate in their
curation. This should provide a unique scientific and educational
opportunity to Las Cruces and the surrounding community.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to protect these
important resources and allow for their continuing contribution to our
understanding of life on the ancient Earth.
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. 3599
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 ``Prehistoric Trackways
National Monument Establishment Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Monument.--The term ``Monument'' means the Prehistoric
Trackways National Monument established by section 4(a).
(2) Public land.--The term ``public land'' has the meaning
given the term ``public lands'' in section 103 of the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702).
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
SEC. 3. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) in 1987, a major deposit of Paleozoic Era fossilized
footprint megatrackways was discovered in the Robledo
Mountains in southern New Mexico;
(2) the trackways contain footprints of numerous
amphibians, reptiles, and insects (including previously
unknown species), plants, and petrified wood dating back
approximately 280,000,000 years, which collectively provide
new opportunities to understand animal behaviors and
environments from a time predating the dinosaurs;
(3) title III of Public Law 101-578 (104 Stat. 2860)--
(A) provided interim protection for the site at which the
trackways were discovered; and
(B) directed the Secretary of the Interior to--
(i) prepare a study assessing the significance of the site;
and
(ii) based on the study, provide recommendations for
protection of the paleontological resources at the site;
(4) the Bureau of Land Management completed the Paleozoic
Trackways Scientific Study Report in 1994, which
characterized the site as containing ``the most
scientifically significant Early Permian tracksites'' in the
world;
(5) despite the conclusion of the study and the
recommendations for protection, the site remains unprotected
and many irreplaceable trackways specimens have been lost to
vandalism or theft; and
(6) designation of the trackways site as a National
Monument would protect the unique fossil resources for
present and future generations while allowing for public
education and continued scientific research opportunities.
SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT.
(a) In General.--In order to conserve, protect, and enhance
the unique and nationally important paleontological,
scientific, educational, scenic, and recreational resources
and values of the public land described in subsection (b),
there is established the Prehistoric Trackways National
Monument in the State of New Mexico.
(b) Description of Land.--The Monument shall consist of
approximately 5,367 acres of public land in Dona Ana County,
New Mexico, as generally depicted on the map entitled
``Prehistoric Trackways National Monument'' and dated June 1,
2006.
(c) Map; Legal Description.--
(1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare and submit
to Congress an official map and legal description of the
Monument.
(2) Corrections.--The map and legal description submitted
under paragraph (1) shall have the same force and effect as
if included in this Act, except that the Secretary may
correct any clerical or typographical errors in the legal
description and the map.
(3) Conflict between map and legal description.--In the
case of a conflict between the map and the legal description,
the map shall control.
(4) Availability of map and legal description.--Copies of
the map and legal description shall be on file and available
for public inspection in the appropriate offices of the
Bureau of Land Management.
(d) Minor Boundary Adjustments.--If additional
paleontological resources are discovered on public land
adjacent to the Monument after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary may make minor boundary adjustments to the
Monument to include the resources in the Monument.
SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION.
(a) Management.--
[[Page S6790]]
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall manage the Monument--
(A) in a manner that conserves, protects, and enhances the
resources and values of the Monument, including the resources
and values described in section 4(a); and
(B) in accordance with--
(i) this Act;
(ii) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); and
(iii) other applicable laws.
(2) National landscape conservation system.--The Monument
shall be managed as a component of the National Landscape
Conservation System.
(3) Protection of resources and values.--The Secretary
shall manage public land adjacent to the Monument in a manner
that is consistent with the protection of the resources and
values of the Monument.
(b) Management Plan.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop a
comprehensive management plan for the long-term protection
and management of the Monument.
(2) Components.--The management plan under paragraph (1)--
(A) shall--
(i) describe the appropriate uses and management of the
Monument, consistent with the provisions of this Act; and
(ii) allow for continued scientific research at the
Monument during the development of the management plan; and
(B) may--
(i) incorporate any appropriate decisions contained in any
current management or activity plan for the land described in
section 4(b); and
(ii) use information developed in studies of any land
within or adjacent to the Monument that were conducted before
the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Authorized Uses.--The Secretary shall only allow uses
of the Monument that the Secretary determines would further
the purposes for which the Monument has been established.
(d) Interpretation, Education, and Scientific Research.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide for public
interpretation of, and education and scientific research on,
the paleontological resources of the Monument, with priority
given to exhibiting and curating the resources in Dona Ana
County, New Mexico.
(2) Cooperative agreements.--The Secretary may enter into
cooperative agreements with appropriate public entities to
carry out paragraph (1).
(e) Special Management Areas.--
(1) In general.--The establishment of the Monument shall
not change the management status of any area within the
boundary of the Monument that is--
(A) designated as a wilderness study area and managed in
accordance with section 603(c) of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1782(c)); or
(B) managed as an area of critical environment concern.
(2) Conflict of laws.--If there is a conflict between the
laws applicable to the areas described in paragraph (1) and
this Act, the more restrictive provision shall control.
(f) Motorized Vehicles.--
(1) In general.--Except as needed for administrative
purposes or to respond to an emergency, the use of motorized
vehicles in the Monument shall be allowed only on roads and
trails designated for use by motorized vehicles under the
management plan prepared under subsection (b).
(2) Permitted events.--The Secretary may issue permits for
special recreation events involving motorized vehicles within
the boundaries of the Monument, including the ``Chile
Challenge''--
(A) to the extent the events do not harm paleontological
resources; and
(B) subject to any terms and conditions that the Secretary
determines to be necessary.
(g) Withdrawals.--Subject to valid existing rights, any
Federal land within the Monument and any land or interest in
land that is acquired by the United States for inclusion in
the Monument after the date of enactment of this Act are
withdrawn from--
(1) entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land
laws;
(2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
(3) operation of the mineral leasing laws, geothermal
leasing laws, and minerals materials laws.
(h) Grazing.--The Secretary may allow grazing to continue
in any area of the Monument in which grazing is allowed
before the date of enactment of this Act, subject to
applicable laws (including regulations).
(i) Hunting.--
(1) In general.--Nothing in this Act diminishes the
jurisdiction of the State of New Mexico with respect to fish
and wildlife management, including regulation of hunting on
public land within the Monument.
(2) Regulations.--The Secretary, after consultation with
the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, may issue
regulations designating zones in which and establishing
periods during which hunting shall not be allowed for reasons
of public safety, administration, or public use and
enjoyment.
(j) Water Rights.--Nothing in this Act constitutes an
express or implied reservation by the United States of any
water or water rights with respect to the Monument.
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this Act.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the fossilized trackways near the
Robledo Mountains in Dona Ana County came to my attention in the early
1990s. During the 101st Congress, I cosponsored Senator Bingaman's
legislation that directed the Bureau of Land Management to study and
report on the prehistoric sites.
I understand the very difficult challenge we face in managing our
public lands in a responsible and environmentally sensitive manner. I
believe our Federal lands are truly National treasures that demand our
most thoughtful management. Local leaders, special interest groups,
multiple users, New Mexico State University, and the Bureau of Land
Management, BLM, have identified numerous land issues in the Las Cruces
area that need to be addressed. The trackways are but one of these
issues that can and should be addressed in the context of a broader
lands bill. I believe that introduction of comprehensive or omnibus
legislation is a preferable approach, rather than the introduction of
individual bills to deal each separate issue.
I support the intent of this bill, as the trackways are remarkable
artifacts that need and deserve protection. While I am very supportive
of the overall goal to protect these prehistoric trackway sites, there
are several particulars in this bill that I do not fully embrace and on
which I want to continue to work with Senator Bingaman, such as
ensuring that we authorize all uses in the area that are not
inconsistent with the purposes of the bill, and reworking the section
regarding BLM authority with respect to hunting activities. As we work
through the committee process, I look forward to working with Senator
Bingaman to accomplish the objective of protecting the prehistoric
trackway sites, while at the same time addressing some of the broader
Federal land issues that need to be addressed in Dona Ana County.
______
By Mr. HARKIN:
S. 3600. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow
the allocation of the alternative fuel vehicle refueling property
credit to patrons of agricultural cooperatives; to the Committee on
Finance.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On page S6790, June 29, 2006, S. 3600 is referred to the
Committee on Appropriations.
The online version has been corrected to read: . . . to the
Committee on Finance.
========================= END NOTE =========================
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Agricultural
Cooperative Renewable Fuel Stations Act of 2006. This legislation
closes a gap in the existing tax incentive for installing alternative
refueling stations. The bill extends the existing alternative fuel
vehicle refueling property credit to patrons of agricultural
cooperatives.
Our continued dependence on foreign oil is extremely worrisome.
Today, about 60 percent of our oil comes from overseas. Last year,
Americans imported almost 5 billion barrels of oil. Our Nation's
overreliance on oil-derived gasoline poses a threat to National
security and places a heavy economic burden on the citizens of our
Nation. In addition, this heavy dependence on oil negatively impacts
the environment.
That is why Senator Lugar and I, with strong bipartisan support, have
pushed to replace foreign oil with more home-grown biofuels and
biobased products. We recently introduced the Biofuels Security Act to
aggressively ramp up the production and use of ethanol and biodiesel,
ensure greater E-85 availability as well as what are known as flex-fuel
cars, those that can run on E-85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15
percent gasoline. Last year I authored critically important biomass
research, development and deployment provisions to the energy bill.
This new measure complements such efforts.
Cooperatives play an important role in the marketing of agricultural
products. According to the USDA, there are over 3,000 agricultural
cooperatives in America today representing millions of American farmers
and investors. The production and distribution of bioenergy offers a
new and lucrative economic opportunity for these organizations.
This year the ethanol industry alone will add more than 5 billion
gallons of clean burning, renewable fuel to our energy supply. Between
now and 2012 ethanol is expected to contribute $200 billion to the GDP.
Not surprisingly, many cooperatives are eager to participate in the
budding bioeconomy. One way for them to do this is to offer E-85
[[Page S6791]]
to their customers. This is a natural fit for farmer cooperatives,
given that they already often produce the feedstocks as well as the
ethanol itself that goes into E-85.
Section 30C of the Internal Revenue Code--26 U.S.C. Sec. 30C--
provides a tax credit of 30 percent of the cost of qualified
alternative fuel vehicle refueling properties up to $30,000. This
legislation would simply allow agricultural cooperatives to pass the
section 30C tax credit through to their members. It parallels pass-
through provisions we have enacted previously, such as the small-
producer ethanol tax credit and the wind power tax credit of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005. The section 30C credit is fostering the creation
and expansion of alternative fueling infrastructure and this
legislation would bolster its effectiveness.
The benefits of this legislation are clear. By supporting the
production, distribution and use of renewable fuels such as E-85 we can
help reduce pollution, increase farm income, create jobs, bolster
economic growth and promote energy and national security. Farmer owned
agricultural cooperatives can and will be leading the way in the months
and years ahead.
______
By Mr. BUNNING:
S. 3602. A bill to provide duty-free treatment for certain parts of
motor vehicles; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to
provide for relief from duties on the import of certain parts of motor
vehicles. It is my intention that this duty suspension bill will be
considered for inclusion in the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill, MTB, that
the Senate Finance Committee is expected to consider this year.
As the Members of the Senate are aware, Congress on occasion passes a
bill, known as the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill or MTB, as a vehicle for
enacting pending noncontroversial duty suspensions. The rules for the
inclusion of a duty suspension in the MTB are straight forward. First
and foremost, in order to be included in the MTB, a bill must be
noncontroversial. A bill will be controversial if it is objected to by
a domestic producer of the product for which the duty reduction is
being sought. Secondly, the cost for each bill must amount to less than
$500,000 of lost revenue per year.
As my colleagues are aware, the MTB provides an opportunity to
temporarily eliminate or reduce duties on narrowly defined products
that are imported into the United States because there is not available
domestic source for the products. These duty suspensions reduce input
costs for U.S. businesses and thus ultimately increase the
competitiveness of their products.
I have been approached by a number of manufacturers in Kentucky that
use imported inputs while making their products. These manufacturers
have represented to me that, to their knowledge, there currently exists
no American-made source for these inputs.
In an effort to assist these Kentucky manufacturers, I have
introduced in the past month a number of these duty suspension bills so
that the items they address will be able to be considered for inclusion
in the MTB prepared by the Senate Finance Committee.
My intention in introducing these bills is to begin the process of
public comment and technical analysis by the International Trade
Commission, ITC, on the items addressed by the bills. During this
review, the ITC will determine which of these bills are necessary and
meet the selection criteria. My support for a duty suspension for the
items is contingent on a determination by the ITC analysts that the
items in question are proper candidates for inclusion in the
noncontroversial MTB.
I look forward to working with Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member
Baucus and my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee as the process
for assembling a final MTB package continues.
F_____
By Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Ms. Stabenow):
S. 3605. A bill to enable the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to
investigate the effects of migratory birds on sustained productivity of
stocks of fish of common concern in the Great Lakes; to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Stabenow, in
introducing the Great Lakes Migratory Bird Research and Management Act
to learn more about a potential problem regarding double-crested
cormorants.
Cormorants are dark-feathered water birds with voracious appetites
for alewives, perch and other fish in the Great Lakes. The double-
crested cormorants reside throughout North America, but according to
the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the largest concentration of double-
crested cormorants is in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes cormorant
population migrates south, along the Atlantic coast and Mississippi
River drainage to the southeastern States and Gulf of Mexico.
The Great Lakes population of cormorants was once in great jeopardy.
By the early 1970s, the population had been severely harmed by chemical
exposure and human contact. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports
that around that time the Great Lakes population fell sharply, with few
birds remaining or breeding successfully. Since then, however, there
has been a huge turnaround due to conservation and pollution reduction
efforts. And today the Great Lakes population of double-crested
cormorants is at an historically high level.
Double-crested cormorants are very skilled at diving for fish. The
increased population have led many people to believe that cormorants
are at least partly responsible for declining fish populations near
several northern Michigan communities.
To help provide better information on the impact of cormorants on the
fish populations in the Great Lakes, we are introducing this
legislation, which authorizes the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to
develop a coordinated double-crested cormorant research program. As
part of that research program, the Commission will recommend measures
that will provide maximum sustained productivity of fishery stocks.
Under this legislation, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission would
establish a committee that represents the multiple jurisdictions
engaged in cormorants management to identify all of the existing
control tactics and strategies in the Great Lakes region, determine the
effectiveness of those tactics and strategies, and compare the tactics
and strategies to the known life history of cormorant populations in
the Great Lakes. In determining the effectiveness of existing control
practices, the Commission will examine the impact that cormorants have
on the Great Lakes fisheries.
Congress has authorized tens of millions of dollars for programs
designed to restore and protect fish in the Great Lakes. Those efforts
are in jeopardy because of our ignorance about the impact of double-
crested cormorants on the Great Lakes fisheries. Having the best
possible information about this unique problem is critical for ensuring
a healthy balance between the cormorant and the fish populations.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN:
S. 3606. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide fair payments for care provided in a hospital emergency
department; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
entitled the Save Our Safety--SOS--Net Act of 2006. This legislation
will help repair the fraying safety net that provides critical health
care to patients throughout the United States. This legislation is
important to the continued survival of many of our Nation's emergency
departments and rural hospitals that provide services to millions of
American's on a daily basis. It is these facilities that are there for
us in the most remote regions of the country, it is these facilities
that are there for us at all times of day and night, and it is these
facilities that will be there for us in time of disaster. We need to
take the steps to ensure the survival of this safety net.
This week, The Institute of Medicine's--IOM--Committee on the Future
of Emergency Care in the United States Health System released a series
of reports detailing the problems facing emergency care in the U.S.
These reports make it clear that emergency departments--EDs--struggle
daily with overcrowding, ambulance diversion, the boarding of admitted
patients in the ED, limited staffing, and poor reimbursement. They face
all of these challenges while continuing to provide access to safe,
high-quality care without regard to ability of the patient to
[[Page S6792]]
pay for their care. Similarly, rural hospitals face shortages of staff
and specialists, poor reimbursement, and the isolation that sometimes
complicates medical care. This system is stressed and is poorly
prepared to accept the additional burdens that could occur in a
disaster or terrorist attack. These safety net systems and the people
who work within them deserve our support and yet the trends are not
promising.
The demand for emergency departments has been growing fast. In the
recent study conducted by the Institute of Medicine, emergency
department visits grew by 26 percent between 1993 and 2003, but due to
lack of funding 425 emergency departments have closed resulting in
almost 200,000 less hospital beds in the U.S. In my own State of New
Mexico, we have seen a decrease from 4.2 to 3.6 beds per 1,000
population from 1990 to 2002. Ambulances are frequently diverted from
overcrowded emergency departments an average of once every minute. With
the growth of the number of elderly patients and the growth of
uninsured patients seeking care in the ED, these statistics will only
worsen if nothing is done.
There are approximately 535 sole community hospitals in 46 States.
Congress has long recognized the special role of these facilities,
because they serve as safety net providers offering hospital services
to isolated communities and regions. These hospitals struggle with poor
reimbursement and difficulty finding staff. Despite the service they
provide, these facilities face the possibility of closing on a yearly
basis.
To improve the ability of our safety net facilities to function, this
bill proposes several steps. By improving Medicare payments for
emergency department services, this bill would provide SOS payments to
physicians and hospitals for the care that is provided in the emergency
department. It would improve reimbursement to emergency departments by
an additional 10 percent for outpatient services delivered to Medicare
beneficiaries.
This legislation will also permanently extend outpatient hold
harmless payment protections to some of the Nation's most vulnerable
institutions, small rural hospitals and sole community hospitals that
serve as safety net providers in rural communities.
Finally, to further strengthen the rural hospital safety net, this
bill will improve disproportionate share hospital--DSH--payments to
these facilities. Congress has historically provided additional
payments to health care providers who treat large numbers of indigent
patients. Disproportionate share hospital payments are made in addition
to the base payments hospitals receive from the Medicare and Medicaid
Programs for inpatient services. This bill will eliminate the cap that
is present on DSH add-on payments to rural hospitals. This will remove
some of the inequities between urban and rural hospitals.
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. 3606
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Save Our
Safety Net Act of 2005''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Ensuring adequate physician payment for emergency department
visits.
Sec. 3. Ensuring adequate hospital outpatient fee schedule amounts for
clinic and emergency department visits.
Sec. 4. Permanent extension of adjustment to limit decline in payments
for certain hospitals under hospital outpatient PPS.
Sec. 5. Fairness in the Medicare disproportionate share hospital (DSH)
adjustment for rural hospitals.
SEC. 2. ENSURING ADEQUATE PHYSICIAN PAYMENT FOR EMERGENCY
DEPARTMENT VISITS.
Section 1833 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l)
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(v) Save Our Safety Net Payments for Physicians' Services
Provided in an Emergency Department.--In the case of
physicians' services furnished to an individual covered under
the insurance program established by this part in an
emergency department on or after January 1, 2006, in addition
to the amount of payment that would otherwise be made for
such services under this part, there also shall be paid to
the physician or other person (or to an employer or entity in
the cases described in clause (A) of section 1842(b)(6)) from
the Federal Supplementary Insurance Trust Fund an amount
equal to 10 percent of the payment amount for the service
under this part.''.
SEC. 3. ENSURING ADEQUATE HOSPITAL OUTPATIENT FEE SCHEDULE
AMOUNTS FOR CLINIC AND EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT
VISITS.
(a) In General.--Section 1833(t) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395l(t)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3)(C)(ii), by striking ``paragraph
(8)(B)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (8)(B), (11)(B), and
(13)(A)(i)'';
(2) in paragraph (3)(C)(iii), by inserting ``(but not the
conversion factor computed under paragraph (13)(B))'' after
``this subparagraph'';
(3) in paragraph (3)(D)--
(A) in clause (i), by striking ``conversion factor computed
under subparagraph (C) for the year'' and inserting
``applicable conversion factor computed under subparagraph
(C), paragraph (11)(B), or paragraph (13)(B) for the year'';
and
(B) in clause (ii), by inserting ``, paragraph (9)(A), or
paragraph (13)(C)'' after ``paragraph (2)(C)'';
(4) in paragraph (9), by amending subparagraph (B) to read
as follows:
``(B) Budget neutrality adjustment.--
``(i) In general.--If the Secretary makes revisions under
subparagraph (A), then the revisions for a year may not cause
the estimated amount of expenditures under this part for the
year to increase or decrease from the estimated amount of
expenditures under this part (including expenditures
attributable to the special rules specified in paragraph
(13)) that would have been made if the revisions had not been
made.
``(ii) Exemption from reduction.--The relative payment
weights determined under paragraph (13)(C) and the conversion
factor computed under paragraph (13)(B) shall not be reduced
by any budget neutrality adjustment made pursuant to this
subparagraph.''; and
(5) by redesignating paragraphs (13) through (16) as
paragraphs (14) through (17), respectively, and by inserting
after paragraph (12) the following new paragraph:
``(13) Special rules for calculating medicare opd fee
schedule amount for clinic and emergency visits.--
``(A) In general.--In computing the medicare OPD fee
schedule amount under paragraph (3)(D) for covered OPD
services that are furnished on or after January 1, 2006, and
classified within a group established or revised under
paragraph (2)(B) or (9)(A), respectively, for clinic and
emergency visits (as described in subparagraph (D)), the
Secretary shall--
``(i) substitute for the conversion factor calculated under
paragraph (3)(C) the conversion factor calculated under
subparagraph (B); and
``(ii) substitute for the relative payment weight
established or revised under paragraph (2)(C) or (9)(A),
respectively, the relative payment weight determined under
subparagraph (C) for such group.
``(B) Calculation of conversion factor.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A)(i), the conversion factor calculated under
this subparagraph is--
``(i) for services furnished during 2006, an amount equal
to the product of--
``(I) the conversion factor specified for such year in the
final rule published on November 10, 2005, increased by the
percentage by which such conversion factor is reduced for
such year pursuant to paragraph (2)(E), and not taking into
account any subsequent amendments to such final rule; and
``(II) 1.10; and
``(ii) for services furnished in a year beginning on or
after January 1, 2007, the conversion factor computed under
this subparagraph for the previous year increased by the OPD
fee schedule increase factor specified under paragraph
(3)(C)(iv) for the year involved.
``(C) Determination of relative payment weights.--For
purposes of subparagraph (A)(ii), the relative payment weight
determined under this subparagraph for a covered OPD service
that is classified within such a group is--
``(i) for services furnished during 2006, the relative
payment weight specified for such group for such period in
the final rule published November 10, 2005, and not taking
into account any subsequent amendments to such final rule;
and
``(ii) for services furnished in a year beginning on or
after January 1, 2007--
``(I) for ambulatory patient classification group 0601
(relating to mid-level clinic visits), or a successor to such
group, the relative payment weight specified for such group
in the final rule referred to in clause (i); and
``(II) for other ambulatory patient classification groups
described in subparagraph (D), the relative payment weight
established or revised under paragraph (2)(C) or (9)(A),
respectively, for such group for such year (but without
regard to any budget neutrality adjustment under paragraph
(9)(B)).
``(D) Groups for clinic and emergency visits.--For purposes
of this paragraph, the groups established or revised under
paragraph (2)(B) or (9)(A), respectively, for clinic and
emergency visits are ambulatory patient
[[Page S6793]]
classification groups 0600, 0601, 0602, 0610, 0611, 0612, and
0620 as defined for purposes of the final rule referred to in
subparagraph (C)(i) (and any successors to such groups).''.
(b) Limitation on Secretarial Authority.--Notwithstanding
section 1833(t) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395l(t)), as amended by subsection (a), the Secretary of
Health and Human Services may not make any adjustment under--
(1) paragraph (2)(F), (3)(C)(iii), (9)(B), or (9)(C) of
section 1833(t) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395
l(t)); or
(2) any other provision of such section;
to ensure that the amendments made by subsection (a) do not
cause the estimated amount of expenditures under part B of
title XVIII of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395j et seq.) to exceed
the estimated amount of expenditures that would have been
made under such part but for such amendments.
SEC. 4. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF ADJUSTMENT TO LIMIT DECLINE IN
PAYMENTS FOR CERTAIN HOSPITALS UNDER HOSPITAL
OUTPATIENT PPS.
(a) In General.--Section 1833(t)(7)(D)(i) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(t)(7)(D)(i)), as amended by
section 5105 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Public Law
109-171), is amended--
(1) in the clause heading--
(A) by striking ``Temporary'' and inserting ``Permanent'';
and
(B) by striking ``Rural''
(2) by striking subclause (II);
(3) by striking ``(I) In the case'' and inserting ``In the
case'';
(4) by striking ``located in a rural area, for'' and
inserting ``, for''; and
(5) by striking ``furnished before January 1, 2006''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to covered OPD services furnished on or after
January 1, 2006.
SEC. 5. FAIRNESS IN THE MEDICARE DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE
HOSPITAL (DSH) ADJUSTMENT FOR RURAL HOSPITALS.
Section 1886(d)(5)(F)(xiv)(II) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(F)(xiv)(II)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or, in the case'' and all that follows
through ``subparagraph (G)(iv)''; and
(2) by inserting at the end the following new sentence:
``The preceding sentence shall not apply to any hospital with
respect to discharges occurring on or after October 1,
2006.''.
______
By Mr. BAYH (for himself and Mr. Obama):
S. 3607. A bill to amend title IV of the Social Security Act to
ensure funding for grants to promote responsible fatherhood and
strengthen low-income families, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today, I wish to join my good friend,
Senator Bayh, in introducing the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy
Families Act of 2006. This bill addresses a crisis afflicting too many
communities and shortchanging the opportunities of too many kids in
America: the absence of supportive fathers.
If we are serious about breaking the cycle of poverty in America and
raising healthy kids, we have to get serious about the breakdown of
families. We can do that without blame or fingerpointing. We can do it
an openness to new ideas.
It is the same story all across America. More than a quarter of all
families with children have only one parent present, and more than a
third live without their father. And 40 percent of children who live
without their father have not seen him their father in over a year.
Many single mothers are doing a heroic job raising their kids. They
are working two and three jobs, dropping the kids off at school and
daycare, and, quite simply, being both a mother and a father to their
children. I appreciate the work of single mothers, because my own
father was not around during my life, and my mother and grandparents
had to step up to the plate to fill my father's role. But most people
would agree that children are almost always better off with a father
contributing his fair share, and the data shows this. Children are more
likely to be poor and to do worse in school without a father in their
life. And a healthy relationship between children and their father is
important to healthy growth and development.
The Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act addresses these
problems by removing government barriers to healthy relationships and
responsible fatherhood. It improves the economic stability of parents
who accept their parenting responsibility. Our bill sets a high
standard for parents and helps them to reach it with incentives,
support, and tougher enforcement of child support obligations.
We can't simply legislate healthy families and expect all parents to
get and stay married. We can't legislate good parenting skills or good
behavior role models. We can't legislate economic success for all
families. But we can eliminate some of the roadblocks that parents
face, roadblocks often created by the government. And we can provide
some tools to help these parents succeed.
The first way this act removes governmental roadblocks is by
eliminating a perverse disincentive to marriage in the Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families Program. Congress is now telling States
that they may be penalized for serving married couples. That is the
wrong message to send. There should be equality for two-parent families
receiving TANF, and States should not be required to meet a separate
work participation rate for the two-parent families in their caseload.
Second, this act makes important improvements to the child support
system which affects noncustodial fathers as much or more than any
other government program. We restore funding for child support
enforcement and we require States to pass the full amount of child
support collected along to the family. A father is more likely to pay
child support if he knows that the money is going to his kids. Research
from States that have implemented a ``full pass through'' confirm this.
We also require States to review the amount of child support arrears
that are owed to the State and we clarify existing State authority to
forgive such arrearages. A father who earns only $10,000 per year, and
who has $20,000 of child support debt because the State billed him for
the Medicaid birthing costs of his child, is probably going to work
underground and avoid paying child support altogether. He needs an
incentive to get a legitimate job and to begin taking care of his
family. It is in everybody's best interest.
States are also providing funding to assess any other barriers to
healthy family formation or sustainable employment created by their
child support and criminal justice systems. They are encouraged to
establish commissions to propose State law changes that would be in the
best interest of children.
Another important aspect of this act is fostering economic stability
for fathers and their families. This act establishes three employment
demonstration programs. One program is supervised by courts or State
child support agencies that serve parents who are determined to be in
need of employment services in order to pay child support obligations.
The court can arrange temporary employment services for the father
rather than throwing him in jail for nonpayment of support. The second
is a transitional jobs program that combines temporary subsidized
employment with activities that help fathers develop skills and remove
barriers to employment. The third program establishes public-private
partnerships to provide fathers with ``career pathways'' that help them
advance from jobs at low skill levels to jobs that require greater
skills and provide family-sustaining wages and benefits.
These programs are modeled on successful initiatives in Indiana and
Illinois and will be subject to rigorous evaluations to ensure the
goals are being achieved.
This bill fixes the earned-income tax credit to increase the
incentive for fathers to engage in full-time work and paying child
support obligations. The EITC is one of the most successful anti-
poverty programs because it rewards work and supplements wages that may
be too low to support a family. Our bill ensures that the work
incentives under the EITC also apply to noncustodial parents who pay
child support. To be eligible for the enhanced credit, a low-income
parent must be working and current on all child support obligations. We
also accelerate marriage penalty relief for families who receive the
earned-income tax credit. Perversely under the U.S. Tax Code, these
families have been the last to get such relief.
Finally, this bill improves the Responsible Fatherhood and Marriage
Promotion Programs that were funded by the Deficit Reduction Act.
Funding is increased and all fatherhood and marriage programs are
required to coordinate with domestic violence prevention services to
reduce instances of
[[Page S6794]]
domestic violence and promote healthy, nonviolent relationships.
This bill takes these steps because Congress needs to get serious
about the problem of family breakdown. This is a problem that cuts
across all income levels, religions, races and ethnicities, and
communities across this country. There is no segment of our population
that is immune to these challenges.
But some segments of the population are worse off than others. I
would like to speak specifically, for a moment, about family breakdown
in the African-American community--and not just because I, myself, am
an African American. I am addressing this because I know, as Senator
Bayh knows, and as most of my colleagues know, that a problem for one
community is a problem for all of America. Hope deferred for one group
is hope delayed for us all.
Around 70 percent of Black children are born outside of marriage. Of
the 30 percent born to married parents, more than half experience a
divorce. That means that about 85 percent of Black children spend some
or all of their childhood in a home without their father. Fewer than 6
of every 10 young Black men are employed, and in some of our urban and
rural areas the rate of unemployment is over 50 percent. Roughly one-
third of young Black men are involved in some way with the criminal
justice system. And young Black men have the lowest educational
attainment among Black and White men and women.
These factors contribute to low marriage rates among African-American
men. But by age 34, nearly half of Black men are fathers. And roughly
two-thirds of all Black men leaving prison are fathers. I could quote
statistics all day, but the bottom line is, as hard as some of these
men try, it is likely that their children will also be denied the
advantages of healthy parental relationships and married families.
Their children will be more likely to live in poverty and to become
young, unmarried parents themselves. Their children's life chances will
be limited. The cycle of despair will continue.
But there is reason for hope. At the time of the birth of the child,
most fathers are close to both the mother and their child. The
challenge is to maintain healthy relationships between parents and to
strengthen the early bonds between fathers and their children. The
challenge is to improve economic opportunity for all parents so they
can support themselves and their families. The challenge is to break
the cycle by strengthening America's most vulnerable and fragile
families.
That is what this bill does, and it is fully paid for by revenue
raised by closing abusive corporate tax loopholes and blocking the
exploitation of tax havens. This is a solid first step forward in
removing government barriers to healthy family formation, and
addressing the crisis of fatherhood among our Nation's low-income
populations. I urge you to support the Responsible Fatherhood and
Healthy Families Act of 2006.
______
By Mr. ALLARD:
S. 3608. A bill to modify the boundary of Mesa Verde National Park,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today on the 100th anniversary of
Mesa Verde National Park to offer legislation that would expand the
boundary of this national treasure. Mesa Verde is one of our Nation's
most impressive national parks. In addition to its role preserving the
home of some of our Nation's earliest inhabitants, it also serves as an
impressive educational resource. The park also acts as the preeminent
example of heritage tourism in the Nation. Allowing visitors to
actively experience the rich historical and cultural history our Nation
has to offer. The park is able to draw people with over 4,400 recorded
archeological sites, including the impressive cliff dwellings which
number more than 600. People travel from all around the world to see
what we in Colorado are fortunate to have at our fingertips: one of the
most well preserved and exhibited active archeological sites in the
world. Mesa Verde also represents an impressive example of
collaboration; they work with everyone from local elementary school
students to international scholars. Mesa Verde, like its former
inhabitants who flourished here for more than 700 years, has displayed
an impressive resiliency and mystique over the years. The fire the park
experienced a few years ago even revealed to us more of the area's
secrets with newly discovered archeological sites.
I am pleased to be able to introduce this legislation today, because
this legislation shows how the Government should preserve public lands.
This is a good example of finding public support and working with
outside groups and private property owners to find mutually beneficial
ways to preserve our land. The majority of the land that will be added
to the park will come from the Henneman family, who has owned this land
for generations. During this time the Henneman family have been great
stewards of their land. I commend them for their work as land managers.
I would also like to commend the Conservation Fund for their willingess
to work with the Henneman's and the park to protect this land. In
addition I would like to thank the Mesa Verde Park Foundation for the
land that they are generously donating to the park.
Mesa Verde National Park protects some of the best preserved and
notable archeological sites in the world and this legislation will not
only expand its boundaries but also its ability to preserve an
important part of our history.
______
By Mr. KOHL (for himself and Mr. Feingold):
S. 3612. A bill to amend the Federal antitrust laws to provide
expanded coverage and to eliminate exemptions from such laws that are
contrary to the public interest with respect to railroads; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Railroad Antitrust
Enforcement Act of 2006. This legislation will eliminate obsolete
antitrust exemptions that protect freight railroads from competition.
The unneeded exemptions stand in stark contrast to the historical basis
for antitrust law and once again allow railroads to abuse their
dominant market power and raise rates for those who rely on them.
Antitrust law was born out of these same circumstances. Rail barons
abused the power they had over shippers--especially farmers. Any
American history student can describe the anti-consumer policies that
led to the birth of the Sherman Act and later the Clayton Act--the
building blocks of today's antitrust law.
The historical ties between the railroads and the birth of antitrust
law make the situation we face today remarkable. I have heard from a
growing number of shippers in Wisconsin--and I know many of my
colleagues have heard from their shippers in their States--about the
monopolistic practices in which the freight railroads are currently
engaged. Consolidation in the railroad industry, allowed under
antitrust exemptions my legislation would repeal, has resulted in only
four class I railroads providing over 90 percent of the Nation's rail
transportation.
Many industries--known as ``captive shippers''--are served by only
one railroad. These captive shippers face constantly rising rail rates.
They are the victims of monopolistic practices and price gouging by the
single railroad that serves them, price increases which they are forced
to pass along into the price of their products and, ultimately, to
consumers. And in many cases, the ordinary protections of antitrust law
are unavailable to these captive shippers--instead, the railroads are
protected by a series of exemptions from the normal rules of antitrust
law to which all other industries must abide.
In Wisconsin, victims of a lack of railroad competition abound. In
fact, a coalition has formed, consisting of more than thirty affected
organizations--Badger CURE. From Dairyland Power Cooperative in La
Crosse to Wolf River Lumber in New London, companies in my State are
feeling the crunch of years of railroad consolidation. The reliability,
efficiency, and affordability of freight rail have all declined, and
Wisconsin consumers feel the pinch.
There is no better example than Wisconsin's electric utilities.
Dairyland Power serves the electricity needs of more than 575,000
people. As of January of this year, they faced a 93 percent average
increase in rail rates. According to Dairyland, it will now cost about
$80 million to ship $35 million worth of coal, costs that Wisconsin
consumers
[[Page S6795]]
will absorb if Congress does not take action soon. And this problem is
not unique to Wisconsin--shippers across the Nation suffer from
monopolistic practices of the dominant railroads in their regions.
That is why I am introducing the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act
of 2006. This legislation will force railroads to play by the rules of
free competition like all other businesses.
The current antitrust exemptions protect a wide range of railroad
industry conduct from scrutiny by governmental antitrust enforcers.
Railroad mergers and acquisitions are exempt from antitrust law and are
reviewed solely by the Surface Transportation Board. Railroads that
engage in collective ratemaking are also exempt from antitrust law.
Railroads subject to the regulation of the Surface Transportation Board
are also exempt from private antitrust lawsuits seeking the termination
of anti-competitive practices via injunctive relief. Our bill will
eliminate these exemptions.
No good reason exists for them. While railroad legislation in recent
decades including most notably the Staggers Rail Act of 1980--
deregulated much railroad rate setting from the oversight of the
Surface Transportation Board, these obsolete antitrust exemptions
remained in place, insulating a consolidating industry from obeying the
rules of fair competition.
Our bill will bring railroad mergers and acquisitions under the
purview of the Clayton Act, allowing the Federal Government, state
attorneys general, and private parties to file suit to enjoin anti-
competitive mergers and acquisitions. It will restore the review of
these mergers to the agencies where they belong--the Justice
Department's Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission. It
will eliminate the exemption that prevents FTC's scrutiny of railroad
common carriers. It will eliminate the antitrust exemption for railroad
collective ratemaking. It will allow state attorneys general and other
private parties to sue railroads for treble damages and injunctive
relief for violations of the antitrust laws, including collusion that
leads to excessive and unreasonable rates.
In sum, by clearing out this thicket of outmoded antitrust
exemptions, railroads will be subject to the same laws as the rest of
the economy. Government antitrust enforcers will finally have the tools
to prevent anti-competitive transactions and practices by railroads.
Likewise, private parties will be able to utilize the antitrust laws to
deter anti-competitive conduct and to seek redress for their injuries.
As ranking member on the Antitrust Subcommittee, I have found--in
industry after industry--that vigorous application of our Nation's
antitrust laws is the best way to eliminate barriers to competition, to
end monopolistic behavior, to keep prices low and quality of service
high. The railroad industry is no different. All those who rely on
railroads to ship their products--whether it is an electric utility for
its coal, a farmer to ship grain, or a factory to acquire its raw
materials or ship out its finished product--deserve the full
application of the antitrust laws to end the anti-competitive abuses
all too prevalent in this industry today. I urge my colleagues support
the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement 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. 3612
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 ``Railroad Antitrust
Enforcement Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. INJUNCTIONS AGAINST RAILROAD COMMON CARRIERS.
The proviso in section 16 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 26)
ending with ``Code.'' is amended to read as follows:
``Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed
to entitle any person, firm, corporation, or association,
except the United States, to bring suit for injunctive relief
against any common carrier that is not a railroad subject to
the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board under
subtitle IV of title 49, United States Code.''.
SEC. 3. MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS OF RAILROADS.
The sixth undesignated paragraph of section 7 of the
Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18) is amended to read as follows:
``Nothing contained in this section shall apply to
transactions duly consummated pursuant to authority given by
the Secretary of Transportation, Federal Power Commission,
Surface Transportation Board (except for agreements described
in section 10706 of title 49, United States Code, and
transactions described in section 11321 of that title), the
Securities and Exchange Commission in the exercise of its
jurisdiction under section 10 (of the Public Utility Holding
Company Act of 1935), the United States Maritime Commission,
or the Secretary of Agriculture under any statutory provision
vesting such power in the Commission, Board, or Secretary.''.
SEC. 4. LIMITATION OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION.
The Clayton Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the
following:
``Sec. 29. In any civil action against a common carrier
railroad under section 4, 4C, 15, or 16 of this Act, the
district court shall not be required to defer to the primary
jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board.''.
SEC. 5. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Clayton Act.--Section 11(a) of the Clayton Act (15
U.S.C. 21(a)) is amended by striking ``subject to
jurisdiction'' and all that follows through the first
semicolon and inserting ``subject to jurisdiction under
subtitle IV of title 49, United States Code (except for
agreements described in section 10706 of that title and
transactions described in section 11321 of that title);''.
(b) FTC Act.--Section 5(a)(2) of the Federal Trade
Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 44(a)(1)) is amended by striking
``common carriers subject'' and inserting ``common carriers,
except for railroads, subject''.
SEC. 6. EXPANSION OF TREBLE DAMAGES TO RAIL COMMON CARRIERS.
Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 15) is amended by--
(1) redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections
(c) and (d), respectively; and
(2) inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b) Subsection (a) shall apply to common carriers by rail
subject to the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation
Board under subtitle IV of title 49, United States Code,
without regard to whether such railroads have filed rates or
whether a complaint challenging a rate has been filed.''.
SEC. 7. TERMINATION OF EXEMPTIONS IN TITLE 49.
(a) In General.--Section 10706 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``, and the Sherman
Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.),'' and all that follows through
``or carrying out the agreement'' in the third sentence;
(B) in paragraph (4)--
(i) by striking the second sentence; and
(ii) by striking ``However, the'' in the third sentence and
inserting ``The''; and
(C) in paragraph (5)(A), by striking ``, and the antitrust
laws set forth in paragraph (2) of this subsection do not
apply to parties and other persons with respect to making or
carrying out the agreement''; and
(2) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
``(e) Application of Antitrust Laws.--
``(1) In general.--Nothing in this section exempts a
proposed agreement described in subsection (a) from the
application of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), the
Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12, 14 et seq.), the Federal Trade
Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.), section 73 or 74 of
the Wilson Tariff Act (15 U.S.C. 8 and 9), or the Act of June
19, 1936 (15 U.S.C. 13, 13a, 13b, 21a).
``(2) Antitrust analysis to consider impact.--In reviewing
any such proposed agreement for the purpose of any provision
of law described in paragraph (1), the Board and any other
reviewing agency shall take into account, among any other
considerations, the impact of the proposed agreement on
shippers, on consumers, and on affected communities.''.
(b) Combinations.--Section 11321 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``The authority'' in the first sentence and
inserting ``Except as provided in sections 4 (15 U.S.C. 15),
4C (15 U.S.C. 15c), section 15 (15 U.S.C. 25), and section 16
(15 U.S.C. 26) of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 21(a)), the
authority''; and
(B) by striking ``is exempt from the antitrust laws and
from all other law,'' in the third sentence and inserting
``is exempt from all other law (except the antitrust laws
referred to in subsection (c)),''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Application of Antitrust Laws.--
``(1) In general.--Nothing in this section exempts a
transaction described in subsection (a) from the application
of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), the Clayton Act (15
U.S.C. 12, 14 et seq.), the Federal Trade Commission Act (15
U.S.C. 41 et seq.), section 73 or 74 of the Wilson Tariff Act
(15 U.S.C. 8-9), or the Act of June 19, 1936 (15 U.S.C. 13,
13a, 13b, 21a).
``(2) Antitrust analysis to consider impact.--In reviewing
any such transaction for the purpose of any provision of law
described in paragraph (1), the Board and any other reviewing
agency shall take into account, among any other
considerations, the impact of the transaction on shippers and
on affected communities.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) The heading for section 10706 of title 49, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows: ``Rate
agreements''.
[[Page S6796]]
(2) The item relating to such section in the chapter
analysis at the beginning of chapter 107 of such title is
amended to read as follows:
``10706. Rate agreements.''.
______
By Mrs. CLINTON:
S. 3613. A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 2951 New York Highway 43 in Averill Park, New York,
as the ``Major George Quamo Post Office Building''; to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce legislation
which would designate the United States Postal Service located at 2951
New York Highway 43 in Averill Park, NY, as the Major George Quamo Post
Office Building.
MAJ. George Quamo was a highly decorated Green Beret who served in
the Special Forces Unit of the Army in the Vietnam war. In the years
George Quamo served, he established himself as one of the Army's most
highly respected field commanders. Quamo commanded three reconnaissance
teams, leading a number of covert missions and saving the lives of 14
of his men. During his distinguished career he was awarded 26 medals
which included the Distinguished Service Cross, Two Silver Stars,
Bronze Star, Legion of Merit and Presidential Unit Citations. While
conducting a mission in Vietnam, Major Quamo's helicopter crashed. He
was killed at the young age of 27. He was the youngest major ever to
have served in the Special Forces Unit.
MAJ. George Quamo was a Class of 1958 graduate of Averill Park High
School in upstate New York. A natural leader, he was president of his
high school junior class and a quarterback on the football team. After
joining the Army he attended Officer Candidate School. While he died at
a young age, it is clear that his presence was profound on those around
him. ``I still receive phone calls from guys who served under him,''
said his brother James Quamo, now of Spencerport, Monroe County, NY.
``Some of them even cry telling me how they felt about my brother.''
I ask that the Senate come together and honor this brave American
hero for his service to our Nation.
______
By Mr. SPECTER:
S. 3614. A bill to provide comprehensive procedures for the
adjudication of cases involving unprivileged combatants; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss the
case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld which was decided by the Supreme Court of
the United States today and to address the question as to where we go
from here. There have already been many inquiries as to what is the
import of this Supreme Court decision and what are the next steps in
order to establish a framework to deal with the people who are detained
at Guantanamo Bay.
Since the opinions were released this morning, my staff and I have
been reviewing them: 177 pages, 6 opinions. The essence of the decision
of the Supreme Court of the United States on a 5-to-3 vote is that the
President did not have the authority to establish the military
commissions and that the authority rests with the Congress under the
Constitution.
The Court dealt with the issue of the resolution that authorizes the
use of military force, a resolution which the administration has sought
as authority for amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,
and when the Court dealt with the resolution authorizing the use of
military force, the Court said that it did not give the President the
authority to establish the military commissions. The Court did not deal
with any issue of inherent authority. But the decision that the
President lacked the authority to establish the military commissions
makes it obvious that the conclusion of the Supreme Court is that there
is no inherent authority, an inference and a proposition which may have
some weight as we consider collateral matters, for example, on the
electronic surveillance under NSA.
The Constitution of the United States is explicit in article I,
section 8, which states, and I am leaving out some of the irrelevant
language: Congress has the authority ``to make rules concerning
captures on land and water.'' So it is a congressional matter.
In reaching its conclusion, the Supreme Court of the United States
found that the military commissions violated the Code of Military
Justice and also violated the terms of the Geneva Convention. The Court
found that the military commissions violated the Code of Military
Justice because they did not provide for very basic due process
considerations. The Court said that the military commissions violated
the Geneva Convention, which the Court found applicable, reversing the
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia where the Supreme Court
said: The Geneva Convention, common article 3, plainly affords some
minimal protection to individuals, associated with a signatory or even
a nonsignatory, who are involved in a conflict.
The Court dealt with the issue of jurisdiction by saying the
Government contention that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction was
wrong. The Supreme Court referred to a provision of the Detainee
Treatment Act of 2005, which provides:
No court shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an
application for habeas corpus filed by an alien detained at
Guantanamo Bay. . . .
There was a reference to the statutory provision which gave exclusive
jurisdiction, according to the statute, to the District of Columbia
court.
The statute provided specifically:
. . . the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction to
determine the validity of any final decision of a Combatant
Status Review Tribunal which determines that an alien is
properly detained as an enemy combatant.
I argued as forcefully as I could when that amendment was considered,
that it was really atrocious--without any hearings, without any
extended floor debate, and I had 2 minutes to speak under the rules
governing the amendment--that we would be taking away jurisdiction of
the Federal courts except for the District of Columbia. On its face,
that language would say that the Supreme Court of the United States had
no jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court made short shrift of that point, saying that it did
have jurisdiction. When you deal with a constitutional issue, it is
hard for this lawyer to understand how you can take away jurisdiction
from the Supreme Court of the United States. How can you do that, when
we know since Marbury v. Madison in 1803 that the Supreme Court of the
United States is final arbiter of the Constitution? But this language,
this clumsy language sought to vest exclusive jurisdiction in the Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The Supreme Court made short
shrift of that.
On a personal note, and relevant to this consideration as well, in
Justice Scalia's dissent he cites my floor argument in a footnote
saying, at page 12 of his opinion:
An earlier part of the amendment provides that no court,
justice or judge shall have jurisdiction to consider the
application for writ of habeas corpus. . . .Under the
language of exclusive jurisdiction in the D.C. Circuit, the
U.S. Supreme Court would not have jurisdiction to hear the
Hamdan case. . . . Id., at [Senate Congressional Record]
S12796 (statement of Sen[ator] Specter).
Interesting that Justice Scalia, who doesn't believe in congressional
intent or congressional deliberation, would make that citation. But
when I made the point that the statute, on its face, took away
jurisdiction from the Supreme Court of the United States, I made it
plain that I did not think it had any validity. A statute can not do
that.
What the statute was trying to do, in part, was to look to a
favorable court. The DC Circuit was a favorable court--they engaged in
a little court shopping--and there was an effort to take away the
jurisdiction of the district court from habeas corpus proceedings.
Under the logic of Hamdan, where you have a statutory provision that
the DC Circuit has sole jurisdiction and the Supreme Court interprets
that as not taking away jurisdiction of the Supreme Court,
inferentially the same conclusion would follow for the district court.
It doesn't say the district court does not have jurisdiction, just
like it does not say the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction. It
just says exclusive jurisdiction is in the DC circuit. It is a little
hard to see how that would work out if you filed a petition for a writ
of habeas corpus in the DC Circuit. That
[[Page S6797]]
would be anomalous. Those petitions are filed in the district court.
In any case, the Supreme Court claimed jurisdiction over the case and
found that the procedures which the administration has prescribed do
not comport with law.
The Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Guantanamo and made a field
trip there. A number of us, including myself, went to take a look at
Guantanamo, to see it firsthand and to question people there. I had
gone there with the expectation of having a field hearing there. I
wanted to hear from the officials at Guantanamo. When I got to
Guantanamo, after the flight in, I was told there would be no field
hearing--which was a disappointment, and really contrary to what I had
understood the arrangement to be. But we held a hearing and devoted a
considerable amount of work to the issue. Knowing, or thinking that,
the administration's military commissions would be struck down because
they did so little and had no real relationship to due process, we
prepared legislation.
I had it put in final form last week when we considered the
Department of Defense authorization bill, and one Senator did talk
about legislation. I considered offering it at that time but decided
that it was not a good time to do so. But we have it ready to go, ready
for introduction.
Senator Durbin and I introduced a bill to handle the Guantanamo
detainees on February 13, 2002. The issue was not picked up again until
the Judiciary Committee held hearings last June, and this bill, which I
am introducing today, I believe, will satisfy the requirements of the
Supreme Court of the United States.
This bill provides for two divisions. One is for the people who are
charged with specific offenses. We retain the description of a military
commission. We provide that there would be three officers on the
commission, one president--a presiding judge from the Judge Advocate
General's Office. Also an attorney will be provided for the accused,
there will be competent evidence, there will be cross-examination and a
unanimous verdict.
In the event of the use of classified information, we prescribe that
the provisions of the Confidential Information Protection Act would
govern, which is a statute which has been used in our courts for many
years, which authorizes the presiding judge to sift through the
information and make available to the defense whatever is appropriate
and not classified. And if it is classified, then to make it available
at the discretion of the judge to the attorney.
The attorney for the accused would be cleared through regular
channels to deal with classified information so that we would be
protecting the classified information by having it viewed only by
someone authorized to take a look at it, so that the defense lawyer
would be able to use it in the defense of his client. That is not a
perfect situation, but that is the way we have dealt with confidential
information under the so-called Confidential Information Protection
Act.
In our legislation, we also deal with the enemy combatants. These are
the individuals who have been detained at Guantanamo under an
arrangement where there is no limit as to the length of their
detention. That has caused considerable angst, considerable objection.
But it is a very difficult matter. When we are in a war, fighting
terrorists--and we should never lose our focus that we are in that war
and that there are continuing dangers and we have to protect
Americans--until somebody has a better idea, they are going to be
detained. Some have been released and some of those released have been
found on the battlefields killing Americans, so the detention of enemy
combatants is an ongoing issue.
Our legislation provides that there would be a classification
tribunal so that there would be a review of their status, to make a
determination on a periodic basis that they continue to be a threat to
the United States, either on the continent or because they will go back
and fight a war. We provide for an attorney, again, an attorney who
would be cleared to view classified information.
The issue of evidence is much more difficult because these enemy
combatants are frequently taken into custody in a battlefield situation
where competent evidence is not present, so we allow for hearsay.
In the Supreme Court opinion, if there is a showing of necessity,
there is leeway granted in terms of defining sufficient due process.
The Supreme Court found, for example, that the President had
demonstrated sufficiently that there could not be trials in the U.S.
Federal district courts, so ruling that out was fine. It was
acceptable. And leeway, too, for some deviation from all of the
generalized rules might be acceptable. The Supreme Court really didn't
reach the issue of granting leeway because they didn't have a specific
situation, but there would have to be a showing of necessity, a showing
that no other system would work.
So in dealing with the enemy combatants, we are still struggling with
how to handle the issue of indefinite detention, recognizing that they
continue to be a threat.
The legislation which I am introducing today has received
considerable thought and considerable analysis. As I say, it picks up
on legislation which Senator Durbin and I introduced on February 13,
2002. But it still requires a great deal more analysis and a great deal
more thought, which we will give it in due course on the legislative
process. We have altered our schedule in the Judiciary Committee to
reserve July 11 for a hearing, the second day we are back--on that
Tuesday we really swing into action--we will take up an analysis of
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in greater detail than we could do this afternoon in
a short floor statement and with only a few hours to digest the 6
opinions and 177 pages. We will consider this legislation at that time.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in
the Congressional Record at the conclusion of my comments, and a short
summary of the bill, which will enable the reader to follow without
going through the extended text.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3614
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AUTHORITY; FINDINGS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the
``Unprivileged Combatant Act of 2006''.
(b) Authority.--The requirements, conditions, and
restrictions established by this Act are made under the
authority of Congress under clauses 1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
and 18 of article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the
United States.
(c) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Article I, section 8, of the Constitution provides that
the Congress has the power to ``constitute Tribunals inferior
to the Supreme Court; ... define and punish ... Offenses
against the Law of Nations; ... make Rules concerning
Captures on Land and Water; ... make all Laws which shall be
necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the
foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in
any Department or Officer thereof''.
(2) The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized military
tribunals, as stated in Madsen v. Kinsella 343 U.S. 341,
1952, ``[s]ince our nation's earliest days, such tribunals
have been constitutionally recognized agencies for meeting
many urgent governmental responsibilities related to
war....They have taken many forms and borne many names.
Neither their procedure nor their jurisdiction has been
prescribed by statute. It has been adapted in each instance
to the need that called it forth.'' Madsen, citing In re
Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 (1946).
(3) The President has inherent authority to convene
military tribunals arising from his role as Commander and
Chief of the Armed Forces under article II of the
Constitution and from title 10 of the United States Code. Due
to the extraordinary circumstances of the ongoing war on
terrorism, it is appropriate for Congress to provide
additional and explicit authorization of and procedures for
military tribunals to adjudicate and punish offenses relating
to the war on terrorism.
(4) This Act is in direct response to the United State
Supreme Court's ruling in Rasul v. Bush. With the passage of
this Act, the 109th Congress will have addressed the concerns
of the Supreme Court's Rasul majority, and therefore alien
enemy combatants detained or prosecuted under this Act may
not challenge their detentions in the Federal courts of the
United States via the habeas or any other statute.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act, the following definitions apply:
(1) Classification tribunal.--The term ``classification
tribunal'' means any tribunal conducted under section 9 or
any related proceeding.
(2) Classification tribunal board.--The term
``classification tribunal board'' means a board established
pursuant to section 9(d).
[[Page S6798]]
(3) Classified information.--The term ``classified
information'' has the meaning given that term in section 1(a)
of the Classified Information Procedures Act (18 U.S.C.
App.).
(4) Commission.--The term ``commission'' means a military
commission established pursuant to section 3.
(5) Criminal prosecution.--The term ``criminal
prosecution'' means a prosecution for a violation of any
criminal law, including subchapter X of chapter 47 of title
10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice)
or pursuant to the Department of Defenses Military Commission
Instruction number two.
(6) Detainee.--The term ``detainee'' means a person who is
in the custody of the Department of Defense at Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba, and who has not been charged with a criminal
offense during that period.
(7) International terrorism.--The term ``international
terrorism'' has the meaning given that term in section 101 of
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.
1801).
(8) Judge.--The term ``judge'' means a United States
military judge designated by the Secretary of Defense to hear
cases under this Act.
(9) Protected information.--The term ``protected
information'' means information--
(A) that is classified information;
(B) protected by law or rule from unauthorized disclosure;
(C) the disclosure of which may endanger the physical
safety of participants in Commission proceedings, including
prospective witnesses;
(D) concerning intelligence and law enforcement sources,
methods, or activities; or
(E) the disclosure of which would otherwise jeopardize
national security interests.
(10) United states person.--The term ``United States
person'' has the meaning given that term in section 101 of
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.
1801).
(11) Unprivileged combatant.--The term ``unprivileged
combatant'' means an individual--
(A) who has been designated as an enemy combatant by a
Combatant Status Review Tribunal prior to the enactment of
this Act; or
(B) who a Field Tribunal conducted by the United States
military as provided in this Act determines--
(i) is not entitled to the protections set out in the
Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War,
done at Geneva, August 12, 1948 (6 UST 3516) (referred to in
this Act as the ``Geneva Convention''); and
(ii) has--
(I) knowingly assisted, conspired with, or solicited for a
group or an individual hostile to the United States;
(II) knowingly attempted to assist others in taking up arms
against the United States;
(III) conspired with or solicited others to take up arms
against the United States; or
(IV) has taken up arms against, or intentionally assisted
combat operations against, the United States.
(12) Appropriate committees of congress.--The term
``appropriate committees of Congress'' means the Committee on
the Judiciary and the Committee on Armed Services of the
Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee
on Armed Services of the House of Representatives.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZING MILITARY COMMISSIONS.
The President is authorized to establish military
commissions for the trial of individuals for offenses as
provided in this Act.
SEC. 4. JURISDICTION.
(a) Unprivileged Combatants.--This Act establishes
exclusive jurisdiction to hear any matter involving an
unprivileged combatant who has been detained by the
Department of Defense for not less than 180 consecutive days
at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
(b) Offenses.--
(1) Criminal prosecutions.--A commission shall have
jurisdiction to hear any criminal prosecution involving
international terrorism, including any offense under chapter
113B of title 18, United States Code.
(2) Offenses against the laws of war.--A commission shall
have exclusive jurisdiction over violations of the laws of
war committed by unprivileged combatants.
(3) Other offenses.--A commission shall have jurisdiction
over other offenses traditionally triable by military
commissions or pursuant to the Department of Defense's
Military Commission Instruction Number Two.
SEC. 5. APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
(a) Final Decisions.--The United States Court of Military
Appeals shall have exclusive jurisdiction of appeals from all
final decisions of a classification tribunal board or
commission under this Act.
(b) Review by Supreme Court.--
(1) Certiorari.--The decisions of the United States Court
of Military Appeals are subject to review by the Supreme
Court by writ of certiorari.
(2) Exemption from certain petition requirements.--A person
who files a petition for a writ of certiorari under paragraph
(1) shall not be required to submit--
(A) prepayment of any fees and costs or security therefor;
or
(B) the affidavit required by section 1915(a) of title 28,
United States Code.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) In general.--Section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act
of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note) is amended--
(A) in subsection (e), by striking paragraphs (2) through
(4); and
(B) by striking subsection (h) and inserting the following:
``(h) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on
the date of enactment of this Act.''.
(2) Habeas.--Section 2241(e) of title 28, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005'' and
inserting ``the Unprivileged Combatant Act of 2006'';
(B) by striking paragraph (2)(B) and inserting the
following:
``(B) has been determined by a classification tribunal to
meet the requirements of paragraph (1) or (2) of section 9(a)
of the Unprivileged Combatant Act of 2006.''.
SEC. 6. COMMISSION.
(a) Commission Personnel.--
(1) Members.--
(A) Appointment.--The Secretary of Defense shall designate
no less than 12 United States military judges to serve as
members of a commission and to assume other duties assigned
in this Act.
(B) Number of members.--Each commission shall consist of at
least 3 military officers, at least one of whom shall be a
military judge.
(C) Alternate members.--For each such commission, there
shall also be 1 or 2 alternate members. The alternate member
or members shall attend all sessions of the commission. In
case of incapacity, resignation, or removal of any member, an
alternate member shall take the place of that member.
(D) Qualifications.--Each member and alternate member of
the commission shall be a military officer.
(E) Presiding officer.--
(i) In general.--From among the members of the commission,
the Secretary of Defense shall designate a presiding officer
who is a military judge to preside over the proceedings of
that commission.
(ii) Duties.--The duties of the presiding officer shall be
as follows:
(I) The presiding officer shall admit or exclude evidence
at trial in accordance with the rules of this Act. The
presiding officer shall have authority to close proceedings
or portions of proceedings in accordance with this Act or for
any other reason necessary for the conduct of a full and fair
trial.
(II) The presiding officer shall ensure that the
discipline, dignity, and decorum of the proceedings are
maintained, shall exercise control over the proceedings to
ensure proper implementation of the President's Military
Order and this Act, and shall have authority to act upon any
contempt or breach of commission rules and procedures. Any
attorney authorized to appear before a commission who is
thereafter found not to satisfy the requirements for
eligibility or who fails to comply with laws, rules,
regulations, or other orders applicable to the commission
proceedings or any other individual who violates such laws,
rules, regulations, or orders may be disciplined as the
presiding officer deems appropriate, including revocation of
eligibility to appear before that commission. The Court may
further revoke that attorney's or any other person's
eligibility to appear before any other commission convened
under this Act.
(III) The presiding officer shall ensure the expeditious
conduct of the trial. In no circumstance shall accommodation
of counsel be allowed to delay proceedings unreasonably.
(IV) The presiding officer may certify interlocutory
questions to the Military Commission Review Panel for the
Armed Forces as the presiding officer deems appropriate.
(b) Powers of a Commission.--A commission shall have the
following powers:
(1) To summon witnesses to the trial and to require their
attendance and testimony and to put questions to them.
(2) To require the production of documents and other
evidentiary material.
(3) To administer oaths to witnesses.
(4) To appoint officers for the carrying out of any task
designated by the commission, including the power to have
evidence taken.
SEC. 7. PERSONS IN CUSTODY.
(a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
develop--
(1) a complete listing of all persons who--
(A) are being detained by the Department of Defense at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and
(B) the Government wishes to continue to detain as an
unprivileged combatant; and
(2) a detailed summary of the evidence upon which the
determination to keep a person described in paragraph (1) in
custody was made.
(b) Congressional Oversight.--Not later than 10 days after
developing the list described in subsection (a), the
Secretary of Defense shall submit an unclassified version of
that list to the appropriate committees of Congress. A
classified, unredacted version of that list shall also be
submitted to the appropriate committees of Congress for
review.
(c) Updated List.--
(1) In general.--Not less than once every 60 days after the
date the list described in subsection (a) is completed, the
Secretary of Defense shall update the list of the persons
described in subsection (a) and submit to the appropriate
committees of Congress a detailed report for each person on
such list that includes--
[[Page S6799]]
(A) the name and nationality of each such person; and
(B) with respect to each such person--
(i) a detailed statement of why such person has not been
charged, repatriated, or released;
(ii) a statement of when the United States intends to
charge, repatriate, or release such person;
(iii) a description of the procedures to be employed by the
United States to determine whether to charge, repatriate, or
release such person and a schedule for the employment of such
procedures; and
(iv) if the Secretary of Defense has transferred or has
plans to transfer such person from the custody of the
Secretary to another agency or department of the United
States, a description of such transfer.
(2) Form of reports.--Each report required by this
subsection shall be submitted in an unclassified form, to the
maximum extent practicable, and may include a classified
annex, if necessary.
(3) Appropriate committees of congress defined.--In this
subsection, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress''
means--
(A) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on the
Judiciary, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the
Senate; and
(B) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on the
Judiciary, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
of the House of Representatives.
(d) Congressional Oversight.--Not later than 10 days after
updating the list of persons under subsection (c), the
Secretary of Defense shall submit that updated list to the
appropriate committees of Congress in both unclassified and
unredacted, classified form.
SEC. 8. FIELD TRIBUNALS.
(a) In General.--Not more than 30 days after a suspected
unprivileged combatant has been detained by United States
forces, the Department of Defense shall conduct a field
tribunal in order to determine whether the detainee is an
unprivileged combatant and whether the detainee is entitled
to the rights afforded under the Geneva Convention.
(b) Procedures.--The procedures governing a field tribunal
shall be promulgated by the Department of Defense
SEC. 9. CLASSIFICATION TRIBUNALS.
(a) In General.--A detainee shall be released and
repatriated to an appropriate country unless a classification
tribunal board finds by a preponderance of the evidence
that--
(1) the detainee is a threat to the national security
interest of the United States; or
(2) there are reasonable grounds to believe that if
released the detainee would take up arms against the United
States.
(b) Compliance With Geneva Conventions.--If a detainee is
found to be a privileged combatant entitled to provisions
under the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners
of War, done at Geneva, August 12, 1948 (6 UST 3516), then
the detainee must be treated in accordance with that
convention.
(c) Citizen of the United States.--If a detainee is found
to be a citizen of the United States of America, the detainee
shall not be held or tried under this Act.
(d) Classification Tribunal Board.--A classification
tribunal shall be conducted by a board appointed by the
Secretary of Defense and consist solely of line officers, one
of whom shall be an attorney.
(e) Determination.--
(1) In general.--If a classification tribunal board finds
that a detainee meets the requirements of subsection (a), the
classification tribunal board shall order that the detainee
shall continue to be detained by the Department of Defense,
subject to periodic review under subsection (h).
(2) Time period.--The time period for the detention of a
detainee under paragraph (1) may not exceed the time period
that United States forces are engaged in combat operations as
defined by the Department of Defense in the nation or theater
where the detainee was captured so long as the detainee is
found to be a privileged combatant.
(3) Conclusion of combat.--At the conclusion of combat
operations within a given theater or nation--
(A) a privileged combatant that was captured in that area
shall be either indicted under this Act or repatriated to the
appropriate country; and
(B) an unprivileged combatant may continue to be detained
pursuant to subsection (a).
(f) Considerations.--
(1) In general.--In making a determination under subsection
(a), a classification tribunal board shall consider any
information brought to its attention regarding the need for
continued detention, including--
(A) the detainee's alleged position or rank in any hostile
organization;
(B) the activities of that hostile organization;
(C) any statements made by the detainee in response to
interrogation; and
(D) the detainee's history of violence or terrorist
activity.
(2) Prima facie evidence.--If the Government represents
that a detainee was captured during a military engagement
while taking up arms against, or supporting military
operations against, the Armed Forces of the United States or
its allies, there shall be prima facie evidence that, if
released, the detainee would take up arms against the United
States.
(g) Timing.--A detainee shall be afforded a classification
tribunal as soon as is reasonably practicable but not later
than 180 days after the detainee's capture and not later than
30 days after the detainee is listed under section 7, unless
continued.
(h) Periodic Review.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Semiannual review.--The classification tribunal shall
conduct a classification hearing for each detainee not less
frequently than every 180 days, in accordance with the
procedures established under this section and section 10.
(B) Action period.--A detainee apprehended during a
military engagement while taking up arms against, or
supporting military operations against, the Armed Forces of
the United States or its allies may be detained until the
cessation of armed hostilities in the nation or region in
which they were captured.
(2) Argument.--The Government and the detainee may be heard
regarding the review under paragraph (1).
SEC. 10. CLASSIFICATION TRIBUNAL PROCEDURES.
(a) Detainees.--
(1) In general.--A detainee shall not be required to
testify or present any evidence at a classification tribunal.
(2) Presence.--A detainee shall be entitled to be present
at the classification tribunal, unless the head of the
tribunal has decided to admit classified information.
(b) Counsel.--
(1) In general.--A detainee is entitled to the assistance
of counsel admitted to practice under this Act at every stage
of the classification tribunal, including the periodic review
of orders under subsection (e).
(2) Right to appointed counsel.--A detainee who is unable
to obtain counsel is entitled to have counsel admitted to
practice before a commission under this Act.
(3) Refusal of counsel.--A detainee may waive counsel but
shall not be entitled to protected information.
(c) Discovery.--
(1) Government's disclosure.--Not later than 3 days prior
to the classification tribunal, the Government shall make
available for inspection by counsel for the detainee any
affidavit or affirmation the Government intends to offer in
support of continuing to detain the detainee. A
classification tribunal board shall maintain a copy of any
submissions made by the Government for inspection by the
detainee and for transmittal, if necessary, to that tribunal.
(2) Detainee's disclosure.--If the detainee chooses to
submit any evidence, such evidence, including a list of any
witnesses the detainee intends to call, shall be made
available to the Government for inspection not later than 3
days prior to the classification tribunal.
(d) Evidence.--
(1) In general.--The Federal Rules of Evidence shall not
apply to a classification tribunal.
(2) Admissibility standard.--Evidence shall be admitted if
the classification tribunal board determines the evidence
would have probative value to a reasonable person.
(3) Affidavit or affirmation.--The Government may proceed
by proffer and submit any relevant information by affidavit
or affirmation, unless decided unreliable by the members of
the classification tribunal board.
(4) Cross-examination.--
(A) Government witnesses.--If a Government chooses to call
witnesses, the detainee may cross-examine those witnesses on
all relevant facts.
(B) Detainee witnesses.--If a detainee calls any witnesses,
they shall be subject to cross examination.
(C) Detainee.--If the detainee chooses to testify, the
detainee shall be subject to cross-examination.
(e) Defenses.--A detainee may challenge whether the
detainee satisfies the elements required under subsection
(a).
(f) Proceedings.--
(1) In general.--A classification tribunal shall be closed
to the public.
(2) Security clearances.--Each person present at a
classification tribunal, other than the detainee, shall
possess a security clearance appropriate to the level of any
classified information being presented.
(3) Public information regarding proceedings.--After the
classification tribunal board rules in the classification
tribunal, the parties shall propose a nonclassified summary
to that board. The board shall publicly release a summary,
containing any information generated at the tribunal which
can be disclosed in a manner consistent with the Classified
Information Procedures Act (18 U.S.C. App.) and the national
security of the United States.
(g) Reinstituting Classification Proceedings.--
(1) In general.--If a matter involving the classification
tribunal of a detainee is dismissed without prejudice by the
classification tribunal or withdrawn by the Government at, or
prior to, the classification tribunal, the Government may
reinstitute the matter with the tribunal board that dismissed
or permitted the withdrawal of the matter.
(2) Time limit.--A complaint reinstituting proceedings
under paragraph (1) shall be filed not later than 10 days
after the dismissal or withdrawal of the matter.
(3) Number.--The Government may reinstitute proceedings
under paragraph (1) not more than twice and only if approved
by the ranking member on the classification tribunal board.
[[Page S6800]]
SEC. 11. CONTINUANCE OF CLASSIFICATION TRIBUNALS.
(a) Continuances.--
(1) In general.--A classification tribunal board may, for
cause shown, grant a continuance of a classification
tribunal.
(2) Continuance.--
(A) In general.--Upon motion of the Government, the
classification tribunal board may grant a continuance for as
long as necessary, but no longer than a 6-month period, under
paragraph (1) if the classification tribunal board determines
that the detainee is a high level individual in the planning
or financing of terrorist activities or the individual
possess information vital to the safety of the United States
or its citizens.
(B) Subsequent continuances.--The Government may obtain
subsequent continuances for additional 6-month periods so
long as the classification tribunal board finds such
continuances are necessary to the informational gathering
purposes as it related to the national security of the United
States.
(3) Ex parte applications.--
(A) In general.--The Government may move for a continuance
under paragraph (1) ex parte.
(B) Detainee rights.--A detainee--
(i) is not entitled to representation by counsel in
connection with any such ex parte motion; and
(ii) shall not be given notice of the request for a hearing
prior to the ruling of the classification tribunal board on
the Government's request for a continuance pursuant to
paragraph (2).
(b) Grant of Continuance.--For each continuance granted
under subsection (a), the classification tribunal board shall
note on the record of the proceedings--
(1) the grounds for granting each such continuance;
(2) the identity of the party requesting the continuance;
(3) the new date and time for the tribunal hearing; and
(4) the reasons that the date under paragraph (3) was
chosen.
SEC. 12. CRIMINAL PROSECUTION PROCEDURES GENERALLY.
(a) Counsel.--
(1) In general.--A defendant in a criminal proceeding under
this Act has a right to be represented by counsel admitted to
practice before a commission under this Act.
(2) Appointed counsel.--
(A) In general.--A defendant who is unable to obtain
counsel is entitled to have counsel appointed and to be
represented by such counsel at every stage of the proceeding
subsequent to being indicted.
(B) Appointment procedure.--The Secretary of Defense shall
determine the rules for appointing counsel to practice before
the commission.
(b) Discovery.--
(1) Classified documents and objects.--The Government shall
provide the defense with access to evidence the Government
intends to introduce at trial and with access to evidence
known to the Government or which should be known to the
Government that tends to exculpate the accused. Information
disclosed to the defense may not be disclosed to the
defendant if it is classified as defined by this Act. The
defense may submit classified information for review under
section 12(b)(2).
(2) Separate commission concerning classified
information.--The Secretary of Defense shall appoint a
commission to conduct a thorough review of the classification
system for national security information, including the
policy, procedures, and practices of the system. The
Secretary of Defense shall determine what level of security
clearance is necessary to conduct the review under this
paragraph. No person shall be appointed as a member of the
commission who does not have a security clearance at or above
the level of clearance so designated by the Secretary. The
commission shall make recommendations to the Secretary of
Defense as to the declassification of information relevant to
the trial of detainees.
(3) Regulating discovery.--
(A) In general.--A commission may, for good cause, deny,
restrict, or defer discovery or inspection, or grant other
appropriate relief.
(B) Ex parte request.--A party may make an ex parte request
in writing that a commission deny, restrict, or defer
discovery or inspection under subparagraph (A). If the a
commission grants a request under this subparagraph, the
Commission shall preserve the entire text of the party's
request under seal.
(C) Failure to comply.--If a party fails to comply with the
rules of discovery applicable to a commission, the commission
may--
(i) order that party to permit the discovery or inspection,
specify its time, place, and manner, and prescribe other just
terms and conditions; or
(ii) grant a continuance.
(c) Open Proceedings.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and
(3), a proceeding before a commission shall be open to the
public.
(2) Classified information.--
(A) In general.--Upon motion by the Government, a
proceeding before a commission shall be closed to the public
if necessary to avoid disclosure of classified information.
(B) Nondisclosure.--A priority under subparagraph (A) shall
not disclose any information presented during a closed
session to individuals excluded from such proceeding or part
thereof including the defendant.
(3) Other bases.--A commission may order that a hearing be
held, in whole or in part, in camera, if the commission
determines--
(A) it is appropriate for the security of a witness or a
Government employee or to protect public safety; or
(B) that an open hearing would deter a witness from
testifying freely or prevent the witness from testifying at
all.
(4) Extrajudicial statements.--At the discretion of a
commission, the commission may issue an order limiting
extrajudicial statements by the parties.
(d) Protected Information.--
(1) In general.--A commission may issue protective orders
as necessary to safeguard protected information in a
proceeding before that commission.
(2) Notification.--As soon as practicable, a party shall
notify a commission of any intent to offer evidence including
protected information .
(3) Trial record.--
(A) In general.--All exhibits admitted as evidence but
containing protected information shall be sealed and annexed
to the record of trial.
(B) Protected information not admitted.--Any protected
information not admitted as evidence, but reviewed by a
commission in camera and withheld from the defendant's
counsel over objection shall be sealed and annexed to the
record of the trial, with any associated motions and
responses and any materials submitted in support thereof, as
additional exhibits.
(e) Record of Trial.--
(1) Requirement for record.--A record of each proceeding by
a commission shall be prepared promptly after the conclusion
of the trial.
(2) Verbatim transcript.--The record of trial shall include
a verbatim written transcript of all sessions of the trial.
(3) Exhibits and other evidence.--The record of trial shall
also include all exhibits and other real or demonstrative
evidence, except that photographs may be substituted for any
large written or graphic exhibits and any other real or
demonstrative evidence. If a photograph is substituted for an
exhibit or other evidence, the Government shall retain the
original exhibit or other evidence, respectively, until no
further appeal of the results of the trial is authorized.
(4) Classified information.--In the case of a conviction of
a charge on which classified information is admitted as
evidence by a commission, the copy of the record of trial
submitted to the commission shall include the classified
information.
SEC. 13. TRIAL PROCEDURES FOR UNPRIVILEGED COMBATANTS.
(a) Specialized Procedures.--
(1) Standard of proof.--All 3 members of a commission shall
agree that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
for a defendant to be found guilty.
(2) Rules of procedure.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the Secretary of Defense shall draft supplementary rules to
govern all proceedings under this section.
(B) Standard.--Evidence is admissible if the Secretary of
Defense determines that the evidence would have probative
value to a reasonable person.
(3) Form of trial.--Any trial under this subsection shall
take place before 2 military officers or attorneys and at
least one military judge.
(4) Bad acts.--Other bad acts may be considered if they
would have fallen within the definition under this Act of
either terrorism or terrorist activity and they are deemed to
be relevant by a commission including propensity.
(b) Custody.--The Department of Defense shall retain
custody of any person determined by a commission to be
unprivileged combatants after the person has been either
convicted or sentenced in accordance with this Act, unless
the Department of Defense deems otherwise. Decisions made by
a commission in regards to a detainee's guilt or innocence
may be considered by a tribunal when assessing the need to
continue the detention of a detainee.
SEC. 14. COMMUNICATION WITH PERSONS IN CUSTODY.
An individual detained, indicted, or convicted under this
Act shall only be permitted to communicate with the
interpreter assigned to the individual, the counsel
representing the individual, prison personnel, and any other
individual approved by the Secretary of Defense.
SEC. 15. COMMISSION COUNSEL.
(a) In General.--A person shall be admitted to practice
before a commission if the person--
(1) is a United States citizen;
(2) has been admitted to the practice of law in a State,
district, territory, or possession of the United States, or
before a Federal court;
(3) has not been sanctioned or otherwise the subject of
disciplinary action by any court, bar, or other competent
governmental authority for misconduct;
(4) is eligible for access to information classified at the
level of secret as defined by the Department of Defense; and
(5) signs a written agreement to comply with all applicable
regulations or instructions for counsel, including any rules
of court for conduct during the course of proceedings.
(b) Consultation With Colleagues.--Any person admitted
under subsection (a) shall not confer with any colleague who
does not have the appropriate clearance.
[[Page S6801]]
(c) Security Clearance.--
(1) Expedited consideration.--The Secretary of Defense
shall ensure that a person seeking to be admitted under
subsection (a) is timely processed for the security clearance
required for access to materials necessary for providing a
defendant with effective assistance of counsel.
(2) Counsel ineligible for clearance.--If the Secretary of
Defense determines a person is not eligible for the necessary
security clearance, the person shall not be permitted to
represent an individual in any proceeding before the
Commission. The determination of the Secretary of Defense
shall be final and is not subject to appeal to, or other
review by, any court of the United States.
(d) Travel Expenses.--The Secretary of Defense shall
reimburse any person not employed by the Government who is
representing an individual before the Commission for travel
away from the home or regular place of business of the person
in connection with such representation. The rates for the
payment of travel expenses under this subsection shall be
those authorized for employees of agencies under subchapter I
of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code.
____
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Unprivileged Combatants Act of 2006 is a follow-up to
the Military Commissions Procedures Act of 2002 (S. 1937,
107th Congress) which you cosponsored with Senator Durbin in
February 2002. The goal of this bill is to balance the need
for national security (interrogations and detention of
combatants) with the need to afford detainees with sufficient
due process so that nations such as Great Britain and
Australia will not place undue pressure on the United States
to release their citizens from Guantanamo Bay. This bill
addresses only those combatants currently held at Guantanamo
Bay. The Act clarifies the procedures used in Combatant
Status Review Tribunals and establishes procedures for the
trial of detainees. These procedures constitute ``a
meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that
detention before a neutral decisionmaker.'' (Hamdi v.
Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, O'Connor, J.) This bill does not
address the issue of unprivileged combatants contesting their
detentions through habeas appeals. Although the Graham-Kyl-
Levin amendment to the 2005 DoD appropriations bill has
addressed this issue, a forthcoming Supreme Court decision
(Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 04-5393) will probably require
additional legislation on this matter.
Section 301: Findings: This title is in direct response to
the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Rasul v. Bush.
Section 302: Definition Section: Definition section of the
bill which defines primary terms such as field tribunal,
classification tribunal, military commission, and
unprivileged combatant.
Section 303: Authorizing Military Commissions: The
President is authorized to establish military commissions for
the trial of individuals for offenses as provided in this
title.
Section 304: Jurisdiction Over Unprivileged Combatants:
This title establishes exclusive jurisdiction to hear any
matter involving an unprivileged combatant who has been
detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba. These detainees may be tried via laws of war or
pursuant to the Department of Defense's Military Commission
Instruction Number Two.
Section 305: Appellate Jurisdiction: The U.S. Courts of
Military Appeals shall have exclusive jurisdiction over
appeals from all final decisions of a classification tribunal
board or military commission under this tide. These decisions
are then subject to review by the Supreme Court by writ of
certiorari.
Section 306: Military Commission: The Commissions shall
consist of three military officers, at least one of whom is a
Judge Advocate General. These Commissions shall decide the
guilt or innocence of detainees charged under section 304 of
this Act. This is basically what happens now.
Section 307: Persons in Custody: Not more than 60 days
after the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense is
required to develop a list of all persons who are being
detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and whom the government
wishes to continue to detain as an unprivileged combatant.
The Act requires that the original list and subsequent lists,
updated at least once every 60 days, be submitted to the
appropriate House and Senate committees.
Section 308: Field Tribunals: Not more than 30 days after a
suspected unprivileged combatant has been detained by United
States forces, the Department of Defense shall conduct a
field tribunal (``FT'') in order to determine whether the
detainee is an unprivileged combatant and whether the
detainee is entitled to the rights afforded under the Geneva
Convention. The procedures governing a field tribunal shall
be promulgated by the Department of Defense.
Section 309: Classification Tribunals: A Classification
Tribunal (``CT'') is very similar to the current Combatant
Status Review Tribunal. The CT shall be composed of three
military officers, one of whom shall be an attorney. Pursuant
to a hearing before a CT, a designee shall be released and
repatriated to an appropriate country unless a CT finds by a
preponderance of the evidence that--(l) the detainee is a
threat to the national security interest of the United
States; or (2) there are reasonable grounds to believe that
if released the person would take up arms against the United
States. Decisions of the CT shall be repeated every six
months. Detainees may be released only when the CT or the
Administrative Board determines the detainee is no longer a
threat to national security. This section also expressly
states that a detainee who is also a United States citizen
may not be held or tried under this act.
Section 310: Classification Tribunal Procedures: Procedures
for CT's are the same as those of Combatant Status Review
Tribunals except detainees shall be represented by counsel
and are permitted to view unclassified discovery that the
prosecution plans to present before the tribunal.
Section 311: Continuance of Classification Tribunals:
Classification tribunals may be continued in order for the
government to continue their interrogation of a detainee.
Upon a motion from the Government, the classification
tribunal board may grant a continuance for up to a 6-month
period, if the classification tribunal board determines that:
1) the individual being detained is a high level individual
in the planning or financing of terrorist activities, or 2)
the individual possesses information vital to the safety of
the United States or its citizens. The Government may obtain
more than one continuance if it demonstrates that such
continuances are necessary for information gathering purposes
as it relates to national security. Said applications for
Continuances shall be made ex parte and before a detainee is
given an attorney. Accordingly, a detainee is only given an
attorney once the tribunal is informed that the interrogation
efforts have been exhausted.
Section 312 & 313: Criminal Prosecution Procedures:
Military Commission procedures will be the same as the
current procedures afforded detainees under the current
system.
Section 314: Communication with Persons in Custody: Limits
communications by any detainee indicted or convicted under
this Act to the individual's interpreter, assigned counsel,
prison personnel, and any other individual(s) approved by the
Secretary of Defense.
Section 315: Commission Counsel: Provides the following
criteria for persons to be admitted to practice before a
commission: 1) U.S. Citizen, 2) has been admitted to practice
law in a State, district, territory or possession of the
United States or before Federal Court, 3) has not been
disciplined by any court, bar or other competent governmental
authority for misconduct, 4) maintains a minimum of
``secret'' clearance and 5) signs a written agreement to
comply with all applicable regulations aid instructions for
counsel during the course of proceedings. It further provides
persons admitted to practice will not confer with any
colleague who does not have at least a ``secret'' clearance.
This section provides that individuals seeking to practice
before a commission will be expedited in consideration for
obtaining the necessary security clearance. The decision of
the Secretary of Defense regarding the granting or not of the
security clearance is final and is not eligible for appeal or
review. Finally, this section provides that persons
practicing before the commission are eligible to have their
travel expenses reimbursed.
______
By Mr. HARKIN:
S. 3615. A bill to amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry
Products Inspection Act, and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
to provide for improved public health and food safety through enhanced
enforcement, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Safe and Fair
Enforcement and Recall for Meat, Poultry, and Food--SAFER--Act. This
legislation will protect consumers from contaminated meat and poultry
by giving the Department of Agriculture, USDA, and the Department of
Health and Human Service's Food and Drug Administration, FDA, greater
authority to remove unsafe products from the market.
If enacted, the bill would give USDA and FDA the following three key
tools in keeping food safe for consumers: authority to mandate that a
company recall unsafe meat, poultry, and food products if a company
fails to voluntarily recall unsafe or unwholesome food; require
companies to notify USDA or FDA if they know a product is adulterated
or misbranded; and authority to USDA and FDA to levy civil penalties if
a company violates federal meat, poultry, or food laws. USDA and FDA
are lacking fundamental authorities to maintain a safe and secure food
supply. This legislation would change that.
Foodborne illness continues to be a far too common problem in the
United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC,
estimate that each year 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations,
and 1,800 deaths can be attributed to foodborne diseases. USDA's
Economic Research Service estimates that the cost of foodborne illness
is $6.9 billion a year in medical
[[Page S6802]]
costs, productivity losses, and premature deaths. Even in the face of
such numbers, companies say USDA and FDA do not need more effective
tools to enforce food safety standards. They say the food industry is
compliant with voluntary recalls. It is true most companies do comply,
but there have been problems and delays in recalls. The problem is,
USDA and FDA have no backup authority to order a recall if the company
refuses. What happens then? Without this legislation, USDA and FDA have
to lose precious time to get unsafe product off the shelves. Another
criticism of this legislation is that it would give USDA too much power
to mandate recalls, and may even push the Department to go too far.
However, the bill has a procedure for due process, so that if a company
has evidence that a recall or civil penalties are unjustified, they are
appealable before an administrative law judge.
In addition to mandatory recall authority, the authority to levy a
financial penalty if a company does not comply with our food safety
laws is crucial to enforcing the standards. Civil penalties are an
effective deterrent to stop violators and are already used to enforce
analogous federal safety standards. Currently, USDA and FDA can only
withdraw inspectors and shut down a plant that repeatedly or willfully
violates our meat, poultry and food laws, which can often be a lengthy
and costly process. Such drastic action is very seldom even taken. The
ability to levy civil penalties gives USDA and FDA a much-needed tool
for ensuring compliance with our food safety laws.
USDA recently proposed a rule to provide the public with valuable
information about meat and poultry that is voluntarily recalled. The
rule will disclose the names and locations of stores where such
products have been sold. While I believe this is a step in the right
direction, it is not enough to protect consumers. This USDA rule does
little more than place the burden on consumers to protect their
families or themselves from foodborne illnesses. The SAFER Meat,
Poultry, and Food Act would act as a complement to this USDA proposal,
and would give USDA, as well as FDA, the power to enforce the food
safety standards they have set. I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation to protect the American consumer.
______
By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. Smith, Mr. Bond, Mr. Reed, Mrs.
Murray, and Mr. Sarbanes):
S. 3616. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
an incentive to preserve affordable housing in multifamily housing
units which are sold or exchanged; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce mine and
Senator Gordon Smith's bill, The Affordable Housing Preservation Act of
2006. Our bill provides a solution to preserve federally assisted
affordable multifamily housing.
I want to thank all of our colleagues-- Senators Bond, Reed, Murray,
and Sarbanes--for realizing the importance of this issue and agreeing
to cosponsor our legislation.
I have often said that few Federal programs have helped mothers and
fathers keep their families together more than our low income and
public housing programs. And while I always fight to make sure New York
and the country at large gets all the money it can from Washington,
frankly I am not the kind of elected official who believes that all
government programs are equally good. But low income housing programs
are some of the best things our government has ever done to help
families, mothers, the elderly, and the disabled.
Unfortunately--the current housing climate has reached a crisis point
and the good that we are doing just is not enough anymore. Consider
that in 2001, 95 million people--a whopping one third of the nation--
had housing problems: ranging from high cost burden, to overcrowding,
to poor quality, or worse to homelessness.
In the same year, 41 million people, 14.6 percent of the U.S.
population, were without health insurance and 12 percent of all people
in the U.S.--33.6 million--lacked food security. These are all
interrelated. If rent is too high--you go without health insurance.
Maybe you trim down spending on groceries.
Sixty-five million Americans with housing problems are low income,
and 87 percent of them face high housing cost burdens. In New York, the
numbers are even worse. New York State ranks 47th out of the 50 States
in renter affordability.
Across the board, housing problems are plaguing low income people who
live in both renter and owner households, and by people in all age
groups, including children and seniors.
The bottom line is that twice as many people who lack health
insurance and three times more people who struggle on a regular basis
to put food on their table have housing problems.
But for whatever reason, the housing issue does not attract the same
level of public concern and political attention as other programs. And
that's why housing programs have been cut back by more than just about
any other program over the last decade.
Whenever I speak to New Yorkers--there is a common refrain: from gas
prices to milk costs to rent hikes, the cost of living in New York
keeps going up and up.
It is a demonstrated pattern and we have worked diligently to try to
defend every penny. We have had some successes but it is a yearly
battle and I unfortunately have no doubt that we will continue to fight
to defend every penny of funding for housing programs.
But scraping our pockets for money is not enough. I served on the
Housing Subcommittee for my entire 25 years in Congress and I'm tired
of just playing defense and preventing things from happening.
If we want to actually get something done to improve the housing
market and prospects for millions of low income families we've got to
not just be satisfied with a good defense.
What we need right now is a good offense. As the newest member on the
Senate Finance Committee in addition to my current post on the Banking,
Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, I intend to use this position to
help fight for housing and particularly new funding for housing for New
York and America.
Today I am introducing legislation with my fellow Finance Committee
member, Senator Gordon Smith--proposing that we bring this fight to a
playing field many more are comfortable on. We should focus on housing
tax incentives rather than just relying solely on new spending to
expand the number of affordable housing units.
Since its inception the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the low-income
housing tax credit, for example, has helped build and convert 1.6
million apartments with rents affordable to low income families, by
providing investors in affordable housing developments with a dollar-
for-dollar reduction in their Federal tax liability.
We anticipate that the Affordable Housing Preservation Act of 2006
will afford renters and developers similar benefits. Our legislation
will work to ensure that we can preserve the current supply of
affordable housing by providing tax relief to owners.
At the moment the inadequate present stock of affordable housing
might shrink even further--much of it was built in the 60s and 70s and
is aging and needs to be rehabilitated.
Under normal circumstances--developers who own this housing and have
no interest in rehabilitating it themselves would sell it to another
developer who would refinance and rehabilitate it for affordable
housing.
But because a so called ``exit tax'' is placed on any developer who
plans to sell their subsidized property--more and more are deciding not
to sell and to just sit on the property until they die.
Let's say back in the 70s Developer Dan purchased a plot of land in
Queens for $200,000 and built $800,000 worth of affordable housing on
it--for a total investment of $1 million.
At the time, Developer Dan was able to secure tax benefits as part of
the accelerated tax depreciation program and was able to deduct 70
cents on every dollar invested in affordable housing over a 15-year
period.
So now in 2004 his accelerated depreciation has expired and Dan is
getting on in his years and wants to sell the property--simply to break
even and get out of the business.
[[Page S6803]]
But he can't do it very easily. If Dan sells the property for $1
million he must then pay an exit tax. The exit tax for Dan will be 25
percent applied to the building that was subsidized. So Dan must pay a
$200,000 tax when he sells the building. That is not a very appealing
situation for our friend Dan.
So Dan entertains two other options--instead of keeping the units as
affordable housing he sells his property into the traditional housing
market where he can garner a greater price which includes the amount of
the exit tax but removes the units from the affordable housing market.
Or even more likely, Dan holds onto the property and neglects its
upkeep at a detriment to his tenants and waits until he dies because
then the tax consequence is erased. The property is likely sold in the
traditional market and lost to the affordable housing community.
The Local Initiatives Support Coalition estimates that there are 1
million housing units held in this manner because owners are unwilling
to sell and take on the new tax burden.
That is 1 million housing units--many of which are rapidly
deteriorating and not providing good homes for the people who are
living in them and one million units that will eventually be removed
from the affordable market if we don't do something to make it easier
and more attractive for affordable housing owners to sell their
properties to other affordable housing developers.
So today, we are proposing a plan to waive exit taxes for owners who
sell their properties to buyers who agree to keep the properties
affordable for no less than 30 years. It is a simple fix--and one that
could save us 1 million affordable housing units.
While we await a full scoring of our proposal from the CBO, our back
of the envelope estimate shows that waiving the exit taxes to preserve
this supply of affordable housing represents a $422 million incentive
program over a 10-year period.
We hope this bill will move quickly, especially since we have clear
support in both the House and the Senate. Congressman Jim Ramstad has
introduced a similar bill on the House side. In addition, we have
widespread support from the housing, real estate and investment
community
Before I close I want to make clear--this and similar types of
housing tax proposals are not meant to replace funding for current
housing programs. We will still fight for full funding of every housing
program--from section 8 to CDBG. We just need to modify our strategy
and operate more on the offense rather than the defense.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Schumer in offering
legislation that will help maintain our Nation's affordable housing
inventory. Our country's stock of affordable rental housing is
shrinking. Every day, we lose affordable units to rent increases,
deterioration, and conversions to market-rate housing or commercial
use. For millions of Americans, this means that it is getting harder to
put a roof over their family's heads and food on the table.
In 2000--recognizing that we had a looming crisis--Congress
established the bipartisan Millennial Housing Commission. The
Commission was tasked with studying the importance of affordable
housing to the infrastructure of the United States as well as the
various methods to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the
private sector's role in providing affordable housing.
The bill Senator Schumer and I are introducing is based on a
recommendation by the Millennial Housing Commission. Our bill would
waive the depreciation recapture tax liability if investors sell their
property to owners who will preserve the property as affordable housing
for 30 years. Through a simple change in the Tax Code, our bill will
help preserve the federally assisted affordable housing stock of the
United States at a minimal cost to the Federal Government. This
proposal is supported by a broad coalition of affordable housing
advocates, including the National Housing Conference, the National
Housing Trust, the National Low-Income Housing Coalition, and the
National Council of State Housing Agencies.
According to Oregon Housing and Community Services, OHCS, there are
approximately 4,000 households at risk of losing their homes in the
OHCS portfolio alone. There are another 6,000 households at risk in
section 8 projects not currently in the OHCS portfolio. All of these
properties could benefit from the change Senator Schumer and I are
proposing.
The Neighborhood Partnership Fund of Portland estimates that an
additional 215 Rural Housing Service properties with more than 6,000
units in Oregon could also benefit.
I thank the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, for working with me
on this bill. I believe this is important legislation and will help
stem affordable housing losses in the United States. I look forward to
working with my colleagues to see the legislation passed and signed
into law.
______
By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr.
Schumer):
S. 3618. A bill to establish the Champlain Quadricentennial
Commemoration Commission, the Hudson-Fulton 400th Commemoration
Commission, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, it gives me pride and pleasure to
introduce revised legislation to establish the Champlain
Quadricentennial Commemoration Commission and the Hudson-Fulton 400th
Commemoration Commission.
I began this effort with legislation I introduced 4 years ago during
the 107th Congress. Because my colleagues in the other body and I were
not able to enact our bill that time, we returned in the 108th Congress
with new legislation including needed revisions. I now lay down the
next version of the bill that incorporates welcomed input and reflects
a consensus reached among key leaders who share the goal of honoring
important events in our Nation's and New York State's history.
The United States of America has long been celebrated for its
leadership in innovation, exploration, and ingenuity. These qualities
have been evident dating back as far as 1609 when Englishman Henry
Hudson became the first European to sail up the river later named for
him in the vessel Half Moon. Also in 1609, French explorer Samuel de
Champlain became the first European to see the lake later named for
him, as well as the shores in Northern New York and Vermont.
These explorations led to the establishment of trading posts,
military posts, and settlements as far south as Lake George. From these
early establishments came trade, commerce, cultural, and religious
impact deep into the Mohawk Valley and as far west as Lake Erie. These
settlements influenced our Nation's history, culture, law, commerce,
and traditions of liberty that extend to the present day.
Almost 200 years later, in 1807, Robert Fulton navigated the Hudson
River from the city of New York to Albany in the steamboat Clermont,
successfully inaugurating steam navigation on a commercial basis. This
event helped revolutionize waterborne commerce on the great rivers of
the United States and fostered international relations through
transoceanic travel and trade.
We are now almost 400 years removed from the voyages of Hudson and
Champlain and 200 years removed from the voyage of Fulton. If America
intends to continue in its role as a world leader in innovation,
exploration, and ingenuity, it is important that we provide a suitable
observance of those before us who have contributed to what our nation
is today.
The Champlain Quadricentennial Commemoration Commission and the
Hudson-Fulton 400th Commemoration Commission represents a unique
opportunity to celebrate New York, Vermont and America's glorious
heritage. In 1909, Americans celebrated the 300th anniversaries of
these events with maritime celebrations and art exhibitions. The Dutch
built the first replica of Hudson's ship, the Half Moon, and sent it up
the Hudson River for the observance. In 1959, Congress recognized the
350th anniversary by establishing a similar commission to coordinate
federal participation in the celebrations.
I ask that the Senate come together not only to honor these events
that have contributed to our past, but to celebrate the effects they
will have on our future.
[[Page S6804]]
______
By Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Reed, Mr. Jeffords, Mr.
Voinovich, and Mr. Martinez):
S. 3620. A bill to facilitate the provision of assistance by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development for the cleanup and
economic redevelopment of brownfields; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I introduced the Brownfields
Redevelopment Enhancement Act of 2006 with Senators Dole, Reed,
Jeffords, Voinovich, and Martinez. This bill would allow the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development to assist communities in
transforming idle brownfield sites into productive uses. Brownfields
are abandoned or underused industrial and commercial properties where
redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental
contamination. More than 450,000 of these sites taint our Nation and
limit the economic growth of communities. Brownfields redevelopment can
provide new opportunities for businesses, housing, and recreational
spaces such as urban parks.
Brownfields redevelopment is a fiscally sound way to bring investment
back to neglected neighborhoods, clean up the environment and maximize
use of existing infrastructure. My home State of Michigan has benefited
from hundreds of brownfields redevelopment projects, and this bill
would help to ensure that federal tools are in place to continue with
these successes in Michigan and throughout the Nation.
The Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act would provide the
Department of Housing and Urban Development with new tools to spur
brownfields redevelopment. This bill would provide local governments
with increased accessibility to HUD's Brownfields Economic Development
Initiative grants by allowing HUD to make brownfields grants without
requiring that communities pledge their future community development
block grant funds as collateral. Removing this restriction from the HUD
Brownfields Economic Development Initiative program would allow many
more communities, especially smaller communities, to participate in the
program. The bill also adopts the definition of brownfields used by the
EPA, which would bring greater consistency and clarity to the federal
government's brownfields programs.
The bill authorizes $50 million annually for this important Federal
program, which provides funding for a wide variety of brownfield
redevelopment activities--from site remediation to construction.
Supporters of this bill include the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the
National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of
Industrial and Office Properties, the Real Estate Roundtable, the
National Association of Development Organizations, the Northeast-
Midwest Institute, the National Association of Local Government
Environmental Professionals, the Associated General Contractors of
America, the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, and
the Environmental Bankers Association.
I want to thank my Senate colleagues for working with me on this
bill, and I want to especially thank Jack Reed who played a key role in
the early drafting of the bill.
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. 3620
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 ``Brownfields Redevelopment
Enhancement Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) grants under the Brownfields Economic Development
Initiative of the Department of Housing and Urban Development
provide local governments with a flexible source of funding
to pursue brownfields redevelopment through land acquisition,
site preparation, economic development, and other activities;
(2) to be eligible for such grant funds, a community must
be willing to pledge community development block grant funds
as partial collateral for a loan guarantee under section 108
of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and
this requirement is a barrier to many local communities that
are unable or unwilling to pledge such block grant funds as
collateral; and
(3) by providing grants for the economic development of
brownfield sites independent from section 108 loan guarantees
and the related pledge of community development block grant
funds, more communities will have access to funding for
redevelopment of brownfield sites.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to provide units
of general local government and Indian tribes with increased
accessibility to brownfields redevelopment funds by
permitting the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to
make grants for brownfields development independent from
section 108 loan guarantees.
SEC. 3. BROWNFIELDS DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE.
Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following new section:
``SEC. 123. BROWNFIELDS DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary may make grants under this
section, on a competitive basis as specified in section 102
of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act
of 1989 (42 U.S.C. 3545), only to eligible public entities
(as such term is defined in section 108(o) of this title) and
Indian tribes for carrying out projects and activities to
assist the development and redevelopment of brownfield sites,
which shall include mine-scarred lands.
``(b) Use of Grant Amounts.--Amounts from grants under this
section--
``(1) shall be used, as provided in subsection (a) of this
section, only for activities specified in section 105(a) in
connection with a brownfield site;
``(2) shall be subject to the same requirements that, under
section 101(c) and paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 104(b),
apply to grants under section 106; and
``(3) shall not be provided or used in a manner that
reduces the financial responsibility of any nongovernmental
party that is responsible or potentially responsible for
contamination on any real property and the provision of
assistance pursuant to this section shall not in any way
relieve any party of liability with respect to such
contamination, including liability for removal and
remediation costs.
``(c) Availability of Assistance.--The Secretary shall not
require, for eligibility for a grant under this section, that
such grant amounts be used only in connection or conjunction
with projects and activities assisted with a loan guaranteed
under section 108.
``(d) Applications.--Applications for assistance under this
subsection shall be in the form and in accordance with the
procedures established by the Secretary.
``(e) Selection Criteria.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish criteria
for awarding assistance under this subsection.
``(2) Criteria.--The criteria established under paragraph
(1) shall include--
``(A) the extent of need for such assistance;
``(B) the level of distress in the community to be served
and in the jurisdiction applying for assistance;
``(C) the quality of the plan proposed and the capacity or
potential capacity of the applicant to successfully carry out
the plan; and
``(D) such other factors as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate.
``(f) Definition of Brownfield Site.--For purposes of this
section, the term `brownfield site'--
``(1) has the meaning given such term in section 101(39) of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601(39)); and
``(2) includes a site that meets the requirements under
subparagraph (D) of such section for inclusion as a
brownfield site for purposes of section 104(k) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 9604(k)).
``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated for grants under this section
$50,000,000, for each of fiscal years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010,
and 2011.''.
SEC. 4. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW USE OF CDBG FUNDS TO
ADMINISTER RENEWAL COMMUNITIES.
Section 105(a)(13) of the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5305(a)(13)) is amended by inserting
``and renewal communities'' after ``enterprise zones''.
SEC. 5. APPLICABILITY.
The amendments made by this Act shall apply only with
respect to amounts made available for fiscal year 2007 and
fiscal years thereafter for use under the provisions of law
amended by this Act.
Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, across North Carolina and our Nation, many
local communities face the challenge of what to do with blighted lands
where factories and businesses once thrived. Though abandoned, these
sites still hold great promise for prosperity. In fact, around the
country, deserted, contaminated industrial facilities, called
brownfields, are being reclaimed, cleaned up and redeveloped.
Communities are partnering with the private sector and State and
Federal agencies to turn brownfields into productive sites that promote
economic growth and job creation.
[[Page S6805]]
With nearly 1 million brownfields remaining in the United States, we
need to strengthen these important public-private partnerships. That is
why I am very pleased to introduce the Brownfields Redevelopment
Enhancement Act with my colleagues, Senators Martinez, Levin, Reed,
Voinovich, and Jeffords. This legislation will enable more local
communities to use grant funding from the Department of Housing and
Urban Development's Brownfields Economic Development Initiative, BEDI,
program to literally unearth opportunity.
For several years, HUD has provided more than $200 million to local
governments in BEDI grants of up to $3 million to support demolition,
site clearance, site preparation, infrastructure upgrades, and
redevelopment activities that are needed to transform brownfields into
productive sites once again. This HUD support for brownfields projects
is critical because redevelopment requires more than the environmental
assessment and cleanup funding that is provided by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
BEDI grants generate tremendous private investment in brownfields
redevelopment. In fact, every dollar in BEDI grant funding generates 10
dollars in private sector support for brownfields projects. Still,
these funds could be provided in a much more effective way. Currently
BEDI grants are available only if they are coupled with HUD section 108
loan guarantees, typically in a high loan-to-grant ratio. These section
108 loans must be backed and collateralized by the local government's
future allocations of HUD community development block grant, CDBG,
funds. This requirement is unworkable for many communities. For smaller
localities that do not have an entitlement to CDBG funds, BEDI funds
are very difficult to obtain. And larger CDBG entitlement communities
also have great difficulty in obtaining BEDI funding, either because
they have reached their allowable CDBG borrowing limit or because the
demand for scarce CDBG funding is so great.
The legislation we introduce today would amend the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974 by untying the BEDI program from the
requirement to obtain Section 108 loans, thus making BEDI funding more
accessible for communities large and small. The legislation also would
authorize $50 million in annual HUD grant funding for brownfields
projects.
Communities around the country, including many in my home State of
North Carolina, would benefit tremendously from this adjustment in BEDI
grant requirements. For example, Wilson, N.C. wants to clean up and
redevelop 30 acres of vacant tobacco warehouses in the downtown
district. But because Wilson is not a CDBG entitlement community, these
BEDI funds currently are unattainable under the section 108
requirement. And in Winston-Salem, city leaders seek to make a corridor
of underutilized brownfield land into part of the Piedmont Triad
Research Park, a global center for life science and medical technology.
Winston-Salem, though a CDBG entitlement city, cannot access any
additional BEDI funding because the city is nearing its CDBG debt
guarantee limit. The legislation we propose today would remove these
barriers for places like Wilson and Winston-Salem and enable our
communities to turn great visions for economic development into
reality.
The House of Representatives has already approved a similar measure
to spur brownfields cleanup, and this legislation is broadly supported
by many localities and private sector organizations, including the U.S.
Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Development
Organizations, the National Association of Local Government
Environmental Professionals, the National Association of Homebuilders,
the Associated General Contractors of America, the National Association
of Industrial and Office Properties, the National Brownfield
Association, the Real Estate Roundtable, the National Association of
Real Estate Investment Trusts, and North Carolina-based Cherokee
Investment Partners.
With such strong support--in Congress and in communities across the
Nation--for this improvement to the BEDI program, I urge the Senate to
act swiftly on this legislation. Brownfields revitalization projects
are models of successful public-private partnering, and we at the
Federal level must do our part to encourage and enable these endeavors
to continue.
______
By Mr. REID:
S. 3621. A bill to permit certain local law enforcement officers to
carry firearms on aircraft; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation I
originally introduced last Congress, a bill to make air travel safer by
allowing local law enforcement to carry their firearms on aircrafts,
the Safer Skies Act of 2006.
This legislation is needed to increase the safety of our airplanes,
as well as to make it easier for local law enforcement to travel across
the county. Whether on official travel or personal travel, Federal law
enforcement officers are allowed to carry firearms with them throughout
their flights. The legislation I am introducing today would extend the
same privilege--and responsibility--to local law enforcement officers.
Ever since the horrific terrorist attacks that occurred on September
11, 2001, we have seen how our local emergency responders, including
local law enforcement officers, play a vital role in protecting not
just their local communities, but the entire Nation. Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita are the most recent examples. We think of local law
enforcement officers as our Nation's first responders, but they are
also the Nation's early preventers. They are the first to identify
local crimes that could turn into national attacks. They are the first
to report suspicious behavior that could thwart a future terrorist
attack. And they are the ones who can keep our nation safe by stopping
a terrorist threat before it becomes an attack. Their eyes, ears and
experience are critical to our national security, and that includes on
airplanes.
Hundreds, thousands of police officers use the Nation's airlines each
day. Authorizing certain qualified local police officers to carry their
weapons onto planes, whether on or off duty, will give airline personal
access to additional assistance if needed. The unique, long-term
training in handling various disturbances including hostage situations,
barricaded subjects, drunken persons and the mentally ill will provide
added security to our Nation's flights and enhance passenger safety.
Authorizing qualified local officers to carry their duty weapons on
aircrafts is a way to be proactive in enhancing the security of our
Nation's air travel. It will also have a deterrent effect on potential
hijackers, knowing their may be more armed law enforcement on any given
flight.
A terrorist attack in any city is a national concern. Local law
enforcement officers are a crucial element of the plan to protect our
Nation. I want to thank the Las Vegas Police Protective Association and
the National Association of Police Organizations for their support of
this important legislation. In particular, I would like to thank
Detective David Kallas, Executive Director Las Vegas Police Protective
Association, Detectives Chris Collins and Michelle Jotz, and John Dean
Harper for their input and advice.
With their help, we have produced legislation that will keep our
country safe, by giving law enforcement the standing they deserve as
they continue to protect our hometowns and the nation. I ask unanimous
consent that both this letter of support from the National Association
of Police Organizations and 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. 3621
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 ``Safer Skies Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. AUTHORITY OF LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO CARRY
FIREARMS ON AIRCRAFT.
(a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 449 of title 49,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``Sec. 44926. Authority of local law enforcement officers to
carry firearms on aircraft
``(a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
the enactment of the Safer Skies Act of 2006, the Under
Secretary of Transportation for Security shall prescribe
[[Page S6806]]
regulations that permit qualified local law enforcement
officers to carry accessible weapons while onboard an
aircraft to the same extent and subject to the same limits as
Federal law enforcement officers are permitted under section
1544.219 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, or any
successor regulation.
``(b) Qualified Local Law Enforcement Officer.--In this
section, the term `qualified local law enforcement officer'
means any full-time State or local enforcement officer,
whether or not on official travel, who--
``(1) is a direct employee of a government agency that--
``(A) employs more than 400 employees; and
``(B) is accredited by a nationally recognized law
enforcement accreditation program;
``(2) is armed in accordance with an agency-wide policy
established by the employing agency by directive or policy
statement; and
``(3) otherwise complies with the requirements relating to
Federal law enforcement officers.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
449 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item related to section 44925 the following:
``Sec. 44926. Authority of local law enforcement officers to carry
firearms on aircraft.''.
____
National Association of
Police Organizations, Inc.,
Washington, DC, June 29, 2006.
Hon. Harry Reid,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Reid: On behalf of the National Association of
Police Organizations (NAPO), representing 238,000 rank-and-
file police officers from across the United States, I would
like thank you for introducing the ``Safer Skies Act of
2006,'' and advise you of our support for the legislation. If
enacted, this legislation would provide additional protection
to those flying our nation's skies by permitting qualified
local law enforcement officers to carry accessible weapons
while onboard an aircraft.
NAPO was actively involved in fighting for the passage of
the ``Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act,'' which rightly
allows off-duty and retired police officers to carry their
firearms for the protection of themselves, their families and
our nation's communities. NAPO stands by this law and firmly
believes that allowing an officer the right to carry an
accessible weapon on a plane is a natural and appropriate
extension of this law.
``Safer Skies Act of 2006'' is necessary and beneficial for
the general welfare of the public, especially after the
events of September 11, 2001. NAPO supports the bill and
looks forward to working with you to expand its coverage in
the future. Ultimately, we feel it is important to include
all of our nation's law enforcement officers in order to
provide greater protection to the officers and our nation's
citizens flying the American skies. If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact me, or NAPO's
Legislative Assistant, Andrea Mournighan.
Sincerely,
William J. Johnson,
Executive Director.
______
By Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. Coleman):
S. 3622. A bill to authorize the President to negotiate the creation
of a North American Investment Fund between the Governments of Canada,
of Mexico, and of the United States to increase the economic
competitiveness of North America in a global economy; to the Committee
on Foreign Relations.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation--
previously introduced in the 108th Congress--which I believe is
important to the long-term competitiveness of North America. And I
would like to thank my distinguished colleague, Mr. Coleman, for his
support and recognition of the value of this legislation. He is an
original co-sponsor of the bill, and I look forward to working with him
and others to ensure its success.
Currently, a significant development gap exists between Mexico and
the United States and Canada. I believe it is in our best interests to
find creative ways to bridge this development gap.
As my colleagues undoubtedly are aware, Mexico will elect a new
President this weekend. When President Fox was elected in 2000 it was a
watershed event for Mexico because the election was fair and the
transfer of power was peaceful. I hope that the same fair, peaceful
process takes place this weekend. So I wish all the candidates well and
I look forward to working with the new Administration and the new
Congress on issues of mutual importance to our countries.
Considered in the context of history, Mexico has--particularly within
the past decade--made significant strides related to its system of
government and its trade policies. However, much work remains to be
done, and I think it is important that we explore ways to help our
neighbor move their development efforts to the next level, to assist
them as they continue on a path of prosperity and growth.
I have come to view the creation of a North American Investment Fund
as both central to our relationship with Mexico and necessary to ensure
the economic prosperity of North America as part of an ever-changing
and growing global economy. I hope that this legislation will be a
useful vehicle to help jump-start discussions on this very important
topic.
My bill authorizes the President to negotiate the creation of a North
American Investment Fund with the governments of Canada and Mexico. The
fund can only be created if Mexico satisfies two conditions.
First, the Government of Mexico must raise tax revenue to 18 percent
of the gross domestic product of Mexico. Their current tax rate is
approximately 9 percent.
Second, Mexico must develop and execute a program of economic reforms
to increase private investment and economic growth, while also
maintaining economic stability in Mexico.
These steps are of the utmost importance because any lasting changes
in Mexico must start from within.
The purpose of this fund is to reinforce efforts already underway in
Mexico to ensure their own economic development. The funding would make
grants available for projects to construct roads in Mexico to
facilitate trade, to develop and expand their education programs, to
build infrastructure for the deployment of communications services and
to improve job training and workforce development for high-growth
industries.
As I have mentioned on several occasions, I have heard from Mexico
leaders who say they want desperately to ``export goods and services,
not people'' to our country. Well, I think we all recognize that
opportunity in one's home country and immigration are linked, and I
believe we should be more involved in helping to promote the strength
and stability of our neighbors.
Development provides a positive and stabilizing influence on
economies, on government institutions, and also on immigration. We've
seen, in past years, a steady flow of immigrants--particularly
undocumented workers--coming across our borders. A vast number of these
immigrants are here to work hard so they can send money home to their
families and relatives. They may be well-intentioned, but at the same
time, these hard workers are doing nothing to help their own economies.
Mexico does not want the most entrepreneurial members of its society
to permanently leave. What it wants most of all is for economic
development to grow in their region, so that citizens would have real
opportunities to stay and grow the economy there. But with the
entrepreneurs and risk-takers coming to the United States, Mexico
cannot hope to improve its own economy.
Economic growth creates new jobs and raises incomes. This growth
lifts people out of poverty even as it spurs positive economic reform.
The potential for good is nearly limitless; as with such a fund we
could spur sustainable development, strengthen private property rights,
while also encouraging competition, regional integration, the open flow
of technology.
So the best solution for all of us is a Mexico economy that is
vibrant--and one important way is to ensure its continued development
of infrastructure and resources. The legislation I am proposing today
would encourage this development, and I urge my colleagues to support
it.
I have no illusions that Congress will move quickly to approve the
idea of a North American Investment Fund. In fact, I think it will
likely take some time to make our case regarding the important role
this fund would play in helping spur much-needed reforms in Mexico. But
this investment in Mexico's future will only serve to contribute to a
more stable and prosperous North America, which should be a goal we all
work to actively support.
It is important that we consider not only what is immediately
feasible, but also what is ultimately desirable--the ultimate goal--in
terms of the relationship between our three countries, and so I urge my
colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.
______
By Ms. LANDRIEU:
[[Page S6807]]
S. 3626. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
estate tax relief and reform, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Finance.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, this is a bill that will reduce the
estate tax and reform a system that needs to be reformed. It is an
issue that many of us have been working on for several--not only
several months but for several years. Leaders on both sides of the
aisle and Members on both sides of the aisle have been trying to come
up with a compromise position that would be respectful of the fiscal
situation of our country and also mindful that this tax in its current
form, at least the rates and the way it is applied in its current form,
can simply not be sustained. It makes no sense for this tax to be in
place 1 year and go completely away the next year and then come back in
the next year at a completely different rate.
We have been trying to make this much more simple for taxpayers who
have to comply with it and much more fair so that it is not a
discouragement for people who want to start businesses at later years.
We want to try to be fair to the Federal Treasury and to the many
demands.
At one point, I supported the total repeal of this tax. That one time
was when we were running a surplus and before we were engaged in the
wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The war in Iraq is costing this country
approximately $4 billion to $6 billion a month. It has been going on
for 3 years. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be an end in sight
because things are not going as well as many of us had hoped. We must
continue to make a priority of this Nation supporting our men and women
in uniform--whether they are here at home or in Iraq in the frontline
or in Afghanistan in the frontline or other frontlines around the
world. So we simply cannot afford to repeal this tax. It takes too much
money out of the Treasury at a time when we need it to support our
troops. Most Americans, regardless of how they feel about the war,
realize we need the money to support our troops and keep them safe and
help bring them home as soon as possible.
I offer this bill in the spirit of compromise. Hopefully, it will
give some guidance to those who may be looking for something they can
support, that costs significantly less than what Chairman Thomas has
proposed, what Senator Kyl has proposed, and what others have proposed,
yet gives that assurance to businesses that they will not have to pay a
fluctuating rate.
The most important thing I think my bill does is it completely
eliminates the estate tax for 99.9 percent of the people in Louisiana
and a great percentage of people throughout the country. If you are an
estate of less than $10 million, you will pay no tax. If you are a
single person with $5 million or an estate worth $10 million, you have
to pay income tax, you will pay capital gains tax, you will pay payroll
tax, you will pay a lot of other taxes that come with the rights and
privileges of being an American citizen, but you will not pay an estate
tax. Only those estates over $10 million will pay the tax. And those
over $100 million--which I would call superstates--would pay a little
more than those that are in the middle.
As a Democrat and as a Senator, I believe in a free enterprise system
where people can make money and benefit from their hard work. We need
to balance between the individual's right to keep as much money as they
can make and the Nation's needs to conduct wars, to protect our
borders, to protect our coasts, to build our highway system--which is
50 years old today and certainly did not get built on a wish and a
prayer. It got built with good design, good political will, and a lot
of money that went into building that highway system that we can be
proud of. It needs to be improved.
So for those who say every American should be able to keep all the
money they make, I don't know who would keep the public sector that
does so much good--from the men and women in uniform, to building the
highways, to keeping our air clean and water clean, and other things
that we depend on Government to help operate and collect in a sensible
way.
I offer this in a spirit of compromise. It is something I certainly
can support, and I look forward to working with my colleagues as we
move through this recess to come to terms with something that is
fiscally responsible and also cognizant of trying to get this tax
leveled so people can plan on what they are going to have to pay and it
will not become a burden on anyone and so everyone can plan, even those
with a great deal of money.
______
By Mr. OBAMA:
S. 3627. A bill to prohibit the Department of Defense and the
Department of Energy from selling, distributing, or transferring
elemental mercury, to prohibit the export of elemental mercury, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, last December, the Chicago Tribune
published an in-depth report on the extent of mercury contamination in
the fish eaten by the American people.
As I am sure my colleagues know, mercury is a potent neurotoxin that
can cause serious developmental problems in children, ranging from
severe birth defects to mental retardation. As many as 630,000 children
born annually in the U.S. are at risk of neurological problems related
to mercury.
In adults, mercury can cause major neurological problems affecting
vision, motor skills, blood pressure and fertility. As many as 10
percent of women in the U.S. of childbearing age have mercury in their
blood at a level that could put a baby at risk.
Mercury, in short, is a poison, and it often reaches humans through
the fish that we eat.
Sampling conducted by the Tribune showed surprisingly high levels of
mercury concentrations in freshwater and saltwater fish purchased by
Chicago area consumers--fish like tuna, swordfish, orange roughy, and
walleye. The Tribune series also reported on how existing programs at
the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection
Agency have failed to adequately test and evaluate mercury levels in
fish.
As someone who regularly eats fish, I was surprised at the range of
species with high mercury levels in the Tribune tests. Fish is an
excellent source of nutrients and other compounds indispensable for
good health. More of us should eat more fish. But for all Americans--
and especially pregnant women and other at-risk groups--there are risks
to eating fish with high mercury levels. That's why we need to work
harder to get at the root causes of mercury contamination.
You see, the long-term solution isn't eating less fish, or issuing
consumption advisories, or printing labels on tuna cans, or posting
placards at the supermarket. If we're really serious about making fish
safer to eat, we need to reduce the amount of mercury in fish, which
means reducing the amount of mercury used in industry.
But, the solution can't be just a U.S. one. Half of mercury settles
near where it is emitted and the other half gets transported around the
globe--often settling in oceans, lakes, and rivers nowhere near mercury
sources. For that reason, we need a comprehensive, global strategy, and
the two bills I am introducing today are designed to be part of that
strategy.
My first bill, the Mercury Market Minimization Act, or M3 Act,
establisbes a ban on U.S. exports of mercury by the year 2010. Such a
ban, when coupled with a European Union proposal to ban mercury exports
by 2011, will constrain global supply of commercially available mercury
in sufficient quantities that developing nations that still use mercury
will be compelled to switch to affordable alternatives to mercury that
are already widespread in industrialized nations.
My second bill, the Missing Mercury in Manufacturing Monitoring and
Mitigation Act, or M5 Act, requires the remaining eight of more than 30
chlor-alkali plants in the United States to complete the transition
from mercury to alternative technologies.
Chlor-alkali facilities manufacture chlorine gas and caustic soda,
important chemicals that serve as the building blocks of many of the
products and plastics essential to modem everyday life. For decades,
mercury was a key component in the chlorine process, but today, more
than 90 percent of the chlor-alkali industry has switched to an
alternative catalyst. Only eight chlor-alkali plants remain in the U.S.
[[Page S6808]]
that still use mercury. The chlorine industry has instituted voluntary
policies to help capture and reduce mercury missions into the
atmosphere--with laudable success. The time has come, however, to
finish these upgrades and end the use of mercury in the chlor-alkali
process.
The amount of mercury emitted or lost by these eight chlor-alkali
plants rivals the amount of mercury emitted by all of the coal-fired
plants in the United States. In 2003, the average chlor-alkali facility
released 1,055 lbs. of mercury into the air--six times as much as the
183 lbs. of mercury released by the average coal-fired powerplant. And
it is likely that the actual amount of mercury released by chlor-alkali
plants is even higher because of emissions that escape through
unmonitored ventilation systems and other leaks.
The M5 Act also solves another gap in the current system; it puts
procedures in place to track and report mercury input and output
statistics in the chlor-alkali industry. The evidence suggests that
between 2000 and 2004, the industry could not account for more than 130
tons of mercury, in addition to the 29 tons that were released into the
environment. The EPA calls this ``an enigma.'' The M5 Act puts an end
to this enigma and requires documented tracking of mercury.
Although this bill deals with chlor-alkali plants, it's important to
acknowledge that coal-fired powerplants are a significant contributor
to the mercury in our atmosphere. We must continue to pursue balanced
policies that address those emissions, but our policy approaches on
mercury cannot single out coal-fired power plants alone. In truth, the
largest source of global mercury contamination is the continued
worldwide use of mercury in developing countries, particularly in gold
mining and general industry, even thought there are proven and
economically viable mercury substitutes.
Mr. President, I believe these two bills will go a long ways towards
improving the health of the American people. I urge the swift enactment
of these bills.
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. 3627
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 ``Missing Mercury in
Manufacturing Monitoring and Mitigation Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) mercury and mercury compounds are highly toxic to
humans, ecosystems, and wildlife;
(2) as many as 10 percent of women in the United States of
childbearing age have mercury in their bloodstreams at a
level that could pose risks to their unborn babies, and as
many as 630,000 children born annually in the United States
are at risk of neurological problems relating to mercury
exposure in utero;
(3) the most significant source of mercury exposure to
people in the United States is ingestion of mercury-
contaminated fish;
(4) the Environmental Protection Agency reports that, as of
2004, as a result of mercury contamination--
(A) 44 States have fish advisories covering more than
13,000,000 lake acres and more than 750,000 river miles;
(B) in 21 States, the freshwater fish advisories are
statewide; and
(C) in 12 States, the coastal fish advisories are
statewide;
(5) the long-term solution to mercury pollution is to
minimize global mercury use and releases of mercury to
eventually achieve reduced contamination levels in the
environment, rather than reducing fish consumption, since
uncontaminated fish represents a critical and healthy source
of nutrition for people worldwide;
(6) an estimated additional 24,000 to 30,000 tons of
mercury are used at mercury cell chlor-alkali plants
worldwide;
(7) mercury pollution is a transboundary pollutant that--
(A) is deposited locally, regionally, and globally; and
(B) affects bodies of water near industrial areas, such as
the Great Lakes, as well as bodies of water in remote areas,
such as the Arctic Circle;
(8)(A) of the approximately 30 plants in the United States
that produce chlorine, only 8 use the obsolete ``mercury
cell'' chlor-alkali process; and
(B) the 8 plants described in subparagraph (A) that use the
mercury cell chlor-alkali process release or lose a quantity
of mercury that rivals the mercury emissions of all coal-
fired power plants in the United States;
(9)(A) only about 10 percent of the total quantity of
chlorine and caustic soda produced comes from the chlor-
alkali plants described in paragraph (8) that use the mercury
cell chlor-alkali process; and
(B) cost-effective alternatives are available and in use in
the remaining 90 percent of chlorine and caustic soda
production, and other countries, including Japan, have
already banned the mercury cell chlor-alkali process;
(10) as of the date of enactment of this Act, the chlor-
alkali industry in the United States possesses approximately
2,500 tons of mercury at facilities using the mercury cell
process and historically has used substantially greater
quantities of mercury because many more facilities in the
past used the mercury cell process;
(11) the chlor-alkali industry acknowledges that--
(A) mercury can contaminate products manufactured at
mercury cell facilities; and
(B) the use of some of those products results in the direct
and indirect release of mercury;
(12) despite those quantities of mercury known to have been
used or to be in use, the chlor-alkali industry and the
Environmental Protection Agency have failed--
(A) to adequately account for the disposition of the
mercury used at those facilities; and
(B) to accurately estimate current mercury emissions; and
(13) it is critically important that the United States work
aggressively toward the monitoring and mitigation of
domestically-used mercury.
SEC. 3. STATEMENT OF POLICY.
Congress declares that the United States should develop
policies and programs that will--
(1) reduce mercury use and emissions within the United
States;
(2) reduce mercury releases from the reservoir of mercury
currently in use or circulation within the United States; and
(3) reduce exposures to mercury, particularly exposures of
women of childbearing age and young children.
SEC. 4. USE OF MERCURY IN CHLORINE AND CAUSTIC SODA
MANUFACTURING.
(a) In General.--Title I of the Toxic Substances Control
Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.) is amended by inserting after
section 6 the following:
``SEC. 6A. USE OF MERCURY IN CHLORINE AND CAUSTIC SODA
MANUFACTURING.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Chlor-alkali facility.--The term `chlor-alkali
facility' means a facility used for the manufacture of
chlorine or caustic soda using a mercury cell process.
``(2) Hazardous waste; solid waste.--The terms `hazardous
waste' and `solid waste' have the meanings given those terms
in section 1004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C.
6903).
``(b) Prohibition.--Effective beginning January 1, 2012,
the manufacture of chlorine or caustic soda using mercury
cells is prohibited in the United States.
``(c) Reporting.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than April 1, 2007, and
annually thereafter through April 1, 2012, the owner or
operator of each chlor-alkali facility shall submit to the
Administrator and the State in which the chlor-alkali
facility is located a report that identifies--
``(A) each type and quantity of mercury-containing
hazardous waste and nonhazardous solid waste generated by the
chlor-alkali facility during the preceding calendar year;
``(B) the mercury content of the wastes;
``(C) the manner in which each waste was managed, including
the location of each offsite location to which the waste was
transported for subsequent handling or management;
``(D) the volume of mercury released, intentionally or
unintentionally, into the air or water by the chlor-alkali
facility, including mercury released from emissions or
vaporization;
``(E) the volume of mercury estimated to have accumulated
in pipes and plant equipment of the chlor-alkali facility,
including a description of--
``(i) the applicable volume for each type of equipment; and
``(ii) methods of accumulation; and
``(F) the quantity and forms of mercury found in all
products produced for sale by the chlor-alkali facility.
``(2) Avoidance of duplication.--To avoid duplication, the
Administrator may permit the owner or operator of a facility
described in paragraph (1) to combine and submit the report
required under this subsection with any report required to be
submitted by the owner or operator under subtitle C of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.).
``(d) Inventory.--
``(1) In general.--For each chlor-alkali facility that
ceases operations on or after July 1, 2008, not later than 1
year after the date of cessation of operations, the
Administrator, in consultation with the State in which the
facility is located, shall conduct a comprehensive mercury
inventory covering the life and closure of the chlor-alkali
facility, taking into the account--
The Record is corrected to read as follows:
S. 3627
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 ``Missing Mercury in
Manufacturing Monitoring and Mitigation Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) mercury and mercury compounds are highly toxic to
humans, ecosystems, and wildlife;
(2) as many as 10 percent of women in the United States of
childbearing age have mercury in their bloodstreams at a
level that could pose risks to their unborn babies, and as
many as 630,000 children born annually in the United States
are at risk of neurological problems relating to mercury
exposure in utero;
(3) the most significant source of mercury exposure to
people in the United States is ingestion of mercury-
contaminated fish;
(4) the Environmental Protection Agency reports that, as of
2004, as a result of mercury contamination--
(A) 44 States have fish advisories covering more than
13,000,000 lake acres and more than 750,000 river miles;
(B) in 21 States, the freshwater fish advisories are
statewide; and
(C) in 12 States, the coastal fish advisories are
statewide;
(5) the long-term solution to mercury pollution is to
minimize global mercury use and releases of mercury to
eventually achieve reduced contamination levels in the
environment, rather than reducing fish consumption, since
uncontaminated fish represents a critical and healthy source
of nutrition for people worldwide;
(6) an estimated additional 24,000 to 30,000 tons of
mercury are used at mercury cell chlor-alkali plants
worldwide;
(7) mercury pollution is a transboundary pollutant that--
(A) is deposited locally, regionally, and globally; and
(B) affects bodies of water near industrial areas, such as
the Great Lakes, as well as bodies of water in remote areas,
such as the Arctic Circle;
(8)(A) of the approximately 30 plants in the United States
that produce chlorine, only 8 use the obsolete ``mercury
cell'' chlor-alkali process; and
(B) the 8 plants described in subparagraph (A) that use the
mercury cell chlor-alkali process release or lose a quantity
of mercury that rivals the mercury emissions of all coal-
fired power plants in the United States;
(9)(A) only about 10 percent of the total quantity of
chlorine and caustic soda produced comes from the chlor-
alkali plants described in paragraph (8) that use the mercury
cell chlor-alkali process; and
(B) cost-effective alternatives are available and in use in
the remaining 90 percent of chlorine and caustic soda
production, and other countries, including Japan, have
already banned the mercury cell chlor-alkali process;
(10) as of the date of enactment of this Act, the chlor-
alkali industry in the United States possesses approximately
2,500 tons of mercury at facilities using the mercury cell
process and historically has used substantially greater
quantities of mercury because many more facilities in the
past used the mercury cell process;
(11) the chlor-alkali industry acknowledges that--
(A) mercury can contaminate products manufactured at
mercury cell facilities; and
(B) the use of some of those products results in the direct
and indirect release of mercury;
(12) despite those quantities of mercury known to have been
used or to be in use, the chlor-alkali industry and the
Environmental Protection Agency have failed--
(A) to adequately account for the disposition of the
mercury used at those facilities; and
(B) to accurately estimate current mercury emissions; and
(13) it is critically important that the United States work
aggressively toward the monitoring and mitigation of
domestically-used mercury.
SEC. 3. STATEMENT OF POLICY.
Congress declares that the United States should develop
policies and programs that will--
(1) reduce mercury use and emissions within the United
States;
(2) reduce mercury releases from the reservoir of mercury
currently in use or circulation within the United States; and
(3) reduce exposures to mercury, particularly exposures of
women of childbearing age and young children.
SEC. 4. USE OF MERCURY IN CHLORINE AND CAUSTIC SODA
MANUFACTURING.
(a) In General.--Title I of the Toxic Substances Control
Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.) is amended by inserting after
section 6 the following:
``SEC. 6A. USE OF MERCURY IN CHLORINE AND CAUSTIC SODA
MANUFACTURING.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Chlor-alkali facility.--The term `chlor-alkali
facility' means a facility used for the manufacture of
chlorine or caustic soda using a mercury cell process.
``(2) Hazardous waste; solid waste.--The terms `hazardous
waste' and `solid waste' have the meanings given those terms
in section 1004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C.
6903).
``(b) Prohibition.--Effective beginning January 1, 2012,
the manufacture of chlorine or caustic soda using mercury
cells is prohibited in the United States.
``(c) Reporting.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than April 1, 2007, and
annually thereafter through April 1, 2012, the owner or
operator of each chlor-alkali facility shall submit to the
Administrator and the State in which the chlor-alkali
facility is located a report that identifies--
``(A) each type and quantity of mercury-containing
hazardous waste and nonhazardous solid waste generated by the
chlor-alkali facility during the preceding calendar year;
``(B) the mercury content of the wastes;
``(C) the manner in which each waste was managed, including
the location of each offsite location to which the waste was
transported for subsequent handling or management;
``(D) the volume of mercury released, intentionally or
unintentionally, into the air or water by the chlor-alkali
facility, including mercury released from emissions or
vaporization;
``(E) the volume of mercury estimated to have accumulated
in pipes and plant equipment of the chlor-alkali facility,
including a description of--
``(i) the applicable volume for each type of equipment; and
``(ii) methods of accumulation; and
``(F) the quantity and forms of mercury found in all
products produced for sale by the chlor-alkali facility.
``(2) Avoidance of duplication.--To avoid duplication, the
Administrator may permit the owner or operator of a facility
described in paragraph (1) to combine and submit the report
required under this subsection with any report required to be
submitted by the owner or operator under subtitle C of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.).
``(d) Inventory.--
``(1) In general.--For each chlor-alkali facility that
ceases operations on or after July 1, 2008, not later than 1
year after the date of cessation of operations, the
Administrator, in consultation with the State in which the
facility is located, shall conduct a comprehensive mercury
inventory covering the life and closure of the chlor-alkali
facility, taking into the account--
========================= END NOTE =========================
[[Page S6809]]
``(A) the total quantity of mercury purchased to start and
operate the chlor-alkali facility;
``(B) the total quantity of mercury remaining in mercury
cells and other equipment at the time of closure of the
chlor-alkali facility;
``(C) the estimated quantity of mercury in hazardous waste,
nonhazardous solid waste, and products generated at the
chlor-alkali facility during the operational life of the
chlor-alkali facility; and
``(D) the estimated aggregate mercury releases from the
chlor-alkali facility into air and other environmental media.
``(2) Records and information.--In carrying out paragraph
(1), the Administrator shall obtain mercury purchase records
and such other information from each chlor-alkali facility as
are necessary to determine, as accurately as practicable from
available information, the magnitude and nature of mercury
releases from the chlor-alkali facility into air and other
environmental media.
``(e) Transfer to Storage.--
``(1) Regulations.--Not later than July 1, 2008, the
Administrator shall promulgate regulations establishing the
terms and conditions necessary to facilitate the transfer and
storage of mercury located at closed or closing chlor-alkali
facilities, including the allocation of costs and potential
liabilities of that transfer and storage.
``(2) Deadline for transfer.--Beginning on July 1, 2008,
elemental mercury located at a closed or closing chlor-alkali
facility that has ceased operations shall be transferred to a
storage facility established by the Administrator in
accordance with the regulations promulgated under paragraph
(1).
``(f) Health Assessment.--Not later than July 1, 2009, for
each chlor-alkali facility that continues to operate as of
July 1, 2008, the Administrator, in coordination with the
Administrator of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry, shall conduct a health assessment of employees at
the chlor-alkali facility.
``(g) Regulations.--In addition to regulations described in
subsection (e)(1), the Administrator may promulgate such
regulations, including the establishment of a reporting form
for use in accordance with subparagraph (c), as are necessary
to carry out this section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents of the
Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 note) is amended
by inserting after the item relating to section 6 the
following:
``Sec. 6A. Use of mercury in chlorine and caustic soda
manufacturing.''.
The Record is corrected to read as follows:
``(A) the total quantity of mercury purchased to start and
operate the chlor-alkali facility;
``(B) the total quantity of mercury remaining in mercury
cells and other equipment at the time of closure of the
chlor-alkali facility;
``(C) the estimated quantity of mercury in hazardous waste,
nonhazardous solid waste, and products generated at the
chlor-alkali facility during the operational life of the
chlor-alkali facility; and
``(D) the estimated aggregate mercury releases from the
chlor-alkali facility into air and other environmental media.
``(2) Records and information.--In carrying out paragraph
(1), the Administrator shall obtain mercury purchase records
and such other information from each chlor-alkali facility as
are necessary to determine, as accurately as practicable from
available information, the magnitude and nature of mercury
releases from the chlor-alkali facility into air and other
environmental media.
``(e) Transfer to Storage.--
``(1) Regulations.--Not later than July 1, 2008, the
Administrator shall promulgate regulations establishing the
terms and conditions necessary to facilitate the transfer and
storage of mercury located at closed or closing chlor-alkali
facilities, including the allocation of costs and potential
liabilities of that transfer and storage.
``(2) Deadline for transfer.--Beginning on July 1, 2008,
elemental mercury located at a closed or closing chlor-alkali
facility that has ceased operations shall be transferred to a
storage facility established by the Administrator in
accordance with the regulations promulgated under paragraph
(1).
``(f) Health Assessment.--Not later than July 1, 2009, for
each chlor-alkali facility that continues to operate as of
July 1, 2008, the Administrator, in coordination with the
Administrator of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry, shall conduct a health assessment of employees at
the chlor-alkali facility.
``(g) Regulations.--In addition to regulations described in
subsection (e)(1), the Administrator may promulgate such
regulations, including the establishment of a reporting form
for use in accordance with subparagraph (c), as are necessary
to carry out this section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents of the
Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 note) is amended
by inserting after the item relating to section 6 the
following:
``Sec. 6A. Use of mercury in chlorine and caustic soda
manufacturing.''.
========================= END NOTE =========================
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Kerry):
S. 3628. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to improve
and extend certain energy-related tax provisions, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing another piece of
legislation with Senator Feinstein that addresses the critical issue of
the Nation's energy policy, the EXTEND the Energy Efficiency Incentives
Act of 2006. The Senator from California and I have come together once
again--given where we are as a Nation in terms of reliance on foreign
oil, the historically high costs of energy, the state of our
environment, and the status of our technological know-how--to introduce
realistic, doable legislation that represents one of the best
opportunities for developing bipartisan consensus on tax policy to
further securing our Nation and its future.
The EXTEND Act, also cosponsored by Senator Kerry, takes a
comprehensive and practical approach to assure that America gets the
maximum possible energy savings and relief from high energy prices at
the lowest cost. It builds on the incentives for efficient buildings
adopted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, EPAct 2005, and modifies them
where necessary to achieve these policy goals.
The bill extends the temporary tax incentives for energy efficiency
buildings established in EPAct 2005, providing 4 years of assured
incentives for most situations, and some additional time for projects
with particularly long lead times, such as commercial buildings. A
sufficient length of time is needed by the business community to make
rational investments. The bill is meant to incentivize not discourage.
I want to encourage businesses to make investments to qualify for
energy efficiency tax incentives. Commercial buildings and large
residential subdivisions have lead times for planning and construction
of 2 to 4 years. This is why the EXTEND Act provides 4 years of assured
incentives for most situations, and some additional time for projects
with long lead times.
I am pleased to have the support of Finance Committee Chairman
Grassley for crafting the correct policy for large-scale commercial
projects, recognizing that these large commercial building projects
take years to design and build. As a mater of fact, I entered into a
colloquy with the chairman the day EPAct 2005 passed the Senate and
received his assurance that he will continue to work with me to make
this a long-term policy of the Tax Code.
Also, the EXTEND Act makes modifications to the EPAct 2005 incentives
so that the incentives are not based on cost but based on actual
performance. These are measured by on-site ratings for whole buildings
and factory ratings for products like solar water heaters and
photovoltaic systems as well as air conditioners, furnaces, and water
heaters. The EXTEND bill provides a transition from the EPAct 2005
retrofit incentives, which are based partially on cost and partially on
performance, to a new system that can provide larger dollar amounts of
incentives based truly on performance.
The Snowe-Feinstein legislation also extends the applicability of the
EPAct 2005 incentives so that the entire commercial and residential
building sectors are covered. The current EPAct 2005 incentives for new
homes are limited to owner-occupied properties or high rise buildings.
Our bill extends these provisions to rental property and offers
incentives whether the owner is an individual taxpayer or a
corporation. This extension does not increase costs significantly, but
it does provide greater fairness and clearer market signals to builders
and equipment manufacturers.
I have worked hard over the past 5 years for performance-based energy
tax incentives for commercial buildings--one-third of energy usage is
from the building sector, so there are great energy savings to be made
with the extension of these incentives. My energy efficiency
tax incentives provisions for commercial buildings that came to
fruition in the EPAct 2005 were tasked to Treasury to promulgate
regulations to harmonize with the law. On June 2, 2006, the Internal
Revenue Service issued guidance on how to comply with section 179D of
the Internal Revenue Code establishing a deduction for commercial
buildings that achieve a reduction in energy consumption of 50 percent.
Unfortunately, the guidance is inadequate, according to energy
efficiency experts, which may stem from the fact that we are into some
uncharted territory and there may be a basic lack of understanding of
what it takes to make energy efficiency tax incentives work, and
specifically those based on performance, not cost. It is critical that
the IRS guidance is written correctly so as to actually incentivize
greater energy efficiencies while making sure any guidance promotes the
best use of taxpayer dollars. I brought these issues to the attention
of the now Secretary of the Treasury Paulson at his nomination hearing
in the Senate Finance Committee on June 27, and I look forward to
working with his people at Treasury to resolve these important issues
relating to the IRS guidance.
It is reasonable to expect many annual benefits after 10 years if we
put into place the appropriate incentives. For instance, direct savings
of natural gas would amount to 2 quads per year or 7 percent of total
projected natural gas use in 2017. And, to this figure must be added
the indirect gas savings from reduced use of gas as an electricity
generation fuel. Total natural gas savings would be 35 quads per year,
or 12 percent of natural gas supply. Total electric peak power savings
would be 115,000 megawatts; almost 12 percent of projected nationwide
electric capacity for the year 2017.
In addition, reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would be 330
million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually, about 16 percent of the
carbon emissions reductions compared to the base case necessary to
bring the U.S. into compliance with the Kyoto Protocol; or roughly 5
percent of projected U.S. emissions in 2017. Also, importantly, the
bill will result in the creation, on net, of over 800,000 new jobs.
The value of energy savings should not be overlooked as both business
and residential consumers will be saving over $50 billion annually in
utility bills by 2017, as a direct result of the reductions in energy
consumption induced by the appropriate incentives. Also, the projected
decrease in natural gas prices will be saving businesses and households
over an additional $30 billion annually.
[[Page S6810]]
I would also like to take this opportunity to comment on the
Feinstein-Snowe 10 in 10 CAFE standards legislation introduced this
past week as the bill is yet another piece for solving the Nation's
energy crisis.
The ten in ten measure is straightforward--we increase the average
mileage of each company's vehicles fleet by 10 miles per gallon in 10
years--10 in 10. This would save 2.5 million barrels of oil a day by
2025--the same amount we currently import daily from the Persian Gulf--
while eliminating 420 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions,
a climate change-causing greenhouse gas, from entering the atmosphere.
Certainly, we ought to be able to at least meet these goals. Yet,
thus far, Congress and the administration have regrettably sent exactly
the wrong message at a time when we have already witnessed a crisis--
and that is, a ``can't do'' attitude, rather than the ``can do'' spirit
that has defined progress in America since our fledgling days as a
nation. We have the means, we have seen the demonstrated necessity, we
possess the entrepreneurial spirit, what exactly is there left not to
get?
There should be no question that increasing fuel economy standards an
average of 1 mile per gallon across a manufacturer's fleet for the next
10 years is a challenge to which this country can rise--in fact, it is
long overdue. We are long past the point of watching and waiting it out
while the U.S. auto makers dither--Congress has a responsibility to
provide leadership on this issue by refusing to accept the notion that
``this is as good as it gets.''
We must reject the administration's request that we just cede to the
Department of Transportation our statutory authority to reform CAFE
standards for passenger cars--especially as DOT has had the opportunity
to increase CAFE standards for SUVs, minivans, and light pickups, but
only incrementally increased the miles per gallon to 22.2 mpg by model
year 2007 that is an increase of less than 1 mile per gallon. This
minimal increase will save less than 2 weeks worth of gasoline each
year for the next 2 decades. We can do better and under our legislation
we will do better.
A wide variety of experts, including some of those who took part in
the 2001 congressionally mandated National Academy of Sciences report
on CAFE standards, agree that the most effective action we could take
today to decrease the price of gasoline is to increase fuel economy
standards for all vehicles--passenger cars and light trucks. Yet the
only time we raised fuel economy standards for passenger cars was back
in 1976. Think about it--in 1976, our computers were about the size of
cars--and now we hold them in the palm of our hand--are we really
saying the United States of America doesn't have the technological
wherewithal to provide 10 more miles-per-gallon over the next 10 years,
at a time when the transportation sector accounts for fully 40 percent
of all the Nation's fossil fuel consumption?
Morever, we give manufacturers the flexibility to develop an entire
fleet that accomplishes the overall fuel economy standard in the most
cost-effective manner--it can be done and it must be done. And with a
third of American drivers now considering trading their current vehicle
for another that gets great fuel economy, frankly, if our auto makers
had embraced higher fuel economy standards when our SUV loophole bill
was first introduced in 2001, or way back in the early 1990s when an
increase in CAFE was a compelling argument for that decade's energy
bill, perhaps the U.S. industry would be in better shape today.
Consumers certainly would be.
And how can there be any question--at this time when our reliance on
foreign oil has skyrocketed from 44 percent 3 decades ago to 72 percent
this year--and prices hover at near historic highs of $70 per barrel--
that we must take a page from America's greatest quests--like putting a
man on the Moon--to finally reduce our consumption of precious fossil
fuels. We are financing the ambitions of radical leaders in some of the
most volatile regions of the world to supply the energy to power
America's future. This makes no sense--not when our bill, through its
resulting fuel savings, would effectively develop Middle Eastern oil
production within our own country within just the next 19 years.
Mr. President, these two bills, the EXTEND Act and the 10 in 10 Act,
are synonymous with the security of America's future. These bills are
two pieces of an overall national energy picture that we need to
address now. Consumers throughout the United States, from small
businesses to families, are demanding leadership on energy prices.
Congress should advance past rhetoric, gimmicks, and photo-ops and move
to substantive legislation such as the EXTEND Act and the 10 in 10 CAFE
bill. It is imperative that Congress begin these policy discussions--we
cannot wait for yet another crisis.
I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues and the
administration to provide the American people the leadership they
deserve on these issues.
______
By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Stevens, and Mr. Byrd):
S.J. Res. 40. A joint resolution authorizing the printing and binding
of a supplement to, and revised edition of, Senate Procedure;
considered and passed.
S.J. Res. 40
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PRINTING OF SUPPLEMENT TO, AND REVISED EDITION OF,
SENATE PROCEDURE.
(a) In General.--Each of the following documents shall be
prepared under the supervision of Alan Frumin,
Parliamentarian and Parliamentarian Emeritus of the Senate,
and shall be printed and bound as a Senate document:
(1) A supplement to ``Riddick's Senate Procedure'', to be
styled ``Frumin's Supplement to Riddick's Senate Procedure''.
(2) A revised edition of ``Riddick's Senate Procedure'', to
be styled ``Frumin's Senate Procedure''.
(b) Copies.--One thousand five hundred copies of each
document described in subsection (a) shall be printed for
distribution to Senators and for the use of the Senate.
____________________