Congressional Record, Volume 155 Issue 3 (Thursday, January 8, 2009)

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 3 (Thursday, January 8, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S212-S235]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Reid,
Mr. Schumer, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Boxer,
Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Whitehouse):
S. 167. A bill to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968 to enhance the COPS ON THE BEAT grant program, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Feinstein, Leahy,
Reid, and others to introduce the COPS Improvement Act of 2009. This
legislation would reauthorize one of the Department of Justice's most
successful efforts to fight crime, the Community Oriented Policing
Services, COPS, program.
The success story of the COPS program has been told many times, but
it is worth repeating. The goal in 1994 was to put an additional
100,000 cops on the beat. Over the next 5 years, from 1995

[[Page S213]]

to 1999, the COPS Universal Hiring Program distributed nearly $1
billion in grants to State and local law enforcement agencies to hire
additional law enforcement officers, allowing us to achieve our goal of
100,000 new officers.
Common sense told the American people that having more police walking
the beat would lead to less crime, and our experience with the COPS
program proved that to be true. This unprecedented effort to put more
police officers in our communities coincided with significant
reductions in crime during the 1990s. As the number of police rose, we
saw 8 consecutive years of reductions in crime. Few programs can claim
such a clear record of success.
Unfortunately, the success of the COPS program led some to declare
victory. Beginning in 2001, funding for the COPS program came under
attack. President Bush proposed cuts to the COPS program in each of his
budget requests, and his proposed cuts to State and local law
enforcement programs has totaled well over $1 billion in recent years.
Despite bipartisan efforts in Congress to prevent those cuts, State and
local law enforcement funding has consistently declined. Ultimately,
the administration succeeded in eliminating the COPS Hiring Program in
2005.
These cuts have been felt by the people who work every day to keep
our communities safe, and the consequences have been real. Cities
across the country have seen the size of their police force reduced.
New York has lost thousands of police officers in recent years. Other
cities have hundreds of vacancies on their forces. Years of decreases
in funding have led to fewer cops on the beat and, unfortunately,
increases in violent crime.
Therefore, in order to restore the safety of our neighborhoods and
communities, it is imperative that we commit ourselves to restoring
funding for the COPS program. The COPS Improvement Act of 2009 would
authorize $1.15 billion per year over 6 years for the COPS program. It
would allocate $600 million per year to hire officers to engage in
community policing and as school resource officers. It also authorizes
$350 million per year for technology grants.
The legislation would also provide some relief to local prosecutors,
who have also seen their ranks reduced by the cuts in funding.
Specifically, it includes $200 million per year to help local district
attorneys hire community prosecutors.
To be sure, some will argue that more than $1 billion is too large a
price tag. It is hard to put a price tag on the security of our
communities. Investing money in such a successful program with such an
important goal is certainly worth the cost. We must also remember that
preventing crime from occurring saves taxpayers from the costs
associated with victim assistance and incarceration. For that reason, a
recent report by the Brookings Institution found ``COPS . . . to be one
of the most cost-effective options available for fighting crime.''
It is also worth noting the assistance the COPS program can provide
to our economy. Few government programs can claim such a direct
connection to job creation. The COPS Hiring Program actually puts more
people in this country to work. In addition to reducing crime, this
investment can serve as a direct injection of money into the American
economy.
It is difficult to overstate the importance of passing the COPS
Improvement Act. Because of the success of the program and the need for
a renewed commitment to it, the bill has long had the support of every
major law enforcement group in the Nation, including the International
Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Association of Police
Organizations, the National Sheriffs Association, the International
Brotherhood of Police Organizations, the National Organization of Black
Law Enforcement Officials, the International Union of Police
Associations, and the Fraternal Order of Police. These law enforcement
officers put their lives on the line every day to make our communities
a safe place to live, and they deserve our full support.
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. 167

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 ``COPS Improvements Act of
2009''.

SEC. 2. COPS GRANT IMPROVEMENTS.

(a) In General.--Section 1701 of the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd) is amended--
(1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
``(a) Grant Authorization.--The Attorney General shall
carry out grant programs under which the Attorney General
makes grants to States, units of local government, Indian
tribal governments, other public and private entities, multi-
jurisdictional or regional consortia, and individuals for the
purposes described in subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e).'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking the subsection heading text and inserting
``Community Policing and Crime Prevention Grants'';
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``, to increase the
number of officers deployed in community-oriented policing'';
(C) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``or train'' after ``pay
for'';
(D) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
``(5) award grants to hire school resource officers and to
establish school-based partnerships between local law
enforcement agencies and local school systems to combat
crime, gangs, drug activities, and other problems in and
around elementary and secondary schools;'';
(E) by striking paragraph (9);
(F) by redesignating paragraphs (10) through (12) as
paragraphs (9) through (11), respectively;
(G) by striking paragraph (13);
(H) by redesignating paragraphs (14) through (17) as
paragraphs (12) through (15), respectively;
(I) in paragraph (14), as so redesignated, by striking
``and'' at the end;
(J) in paragraph (15), as so redesignated, by striking the
period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and
(K) by adding at the end the following:
``(16) establish and implement innovative programs to
reduce and prevent illegal drug manufacturing, distribution,
and use, including the manufacturing, distribution, and use
of methamphetamine; and
``(17) award enhancing community policing and crime
prevention grants that meet emerging law enforcement needs,
as warranted.'';
(3) by striking subsection (c);
(4) by striking subsections (h) and (i);
(5) by redesignating subsections (d) through (g) as
subsections (f) through (i), respectively;
(6) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Troops-to-Cops Programs.--
``(1) In general.--Grants made under subsection (a) may be
used to hire former members of the Armed Forces to serve as
career law enforcement officers for deployment in community-
oriented policing, particularly in communities that are
adversely affected by a recent military base closing.
``(2) Definition.--In this subsection, `former member of
the Armed Forces' means a member of the Armed Forces of the
United States who is involuntarily separated from the Armed
Forces within the meaning of section 1141 of title 10, United
States Code.
``(d) Community Prosecutors Program.--The Attorney General
may make grants under subsection (a) to pay for additional
community prosecuting programs, including programs that
assign prosecutors to--
``(1) handle cases from specific geographic areas; and
``(2) address counter-terrorism problems, specific violent
crime problems (including intensive illegal gang, gun, and
drug enforcement and quality of life initiatives), and
localized violent and other crime problems based on needs
identified by local law enforcement agencies, community
organizations, and others.
``(e) Technology Grants.--The Attorney General may make
grants under subsection (a) to develop and use new
technologies (including interoperable communications
technologies, modernized criminal record technology, and
forensic technology) to assist State and local law
enforcement agencies in reorienting the emphasis of their
activities from reacting to crime to preventing crime and to
train law enforcement officers to use such technologies.'';
(7) in subsection (f), as so redesignated--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``to States, units of
local government, Indian tribal governments, and to other
public and private entities,'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``define for State and
local governments, and other public and private entities,''
and inserting ``establish'';
(C) in the first sentence of paragraph (3), by inserting
``(including regional community policing institutes)'' after
``training centers or facilities''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Exclusivity.--The Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services shall be the exclusive component of the
Department of Justice to perform the functions and activities
specified in this paragraph.'';
(8) in subsection (g), as so redesignated, by striking
``may utilize any component'', and all that follows and
inserting ``shall use the

[[Page S214]]

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services of the
Department of Justice in carrying out this part.'';
(9) in subsection (h), as so redesignated--
(A) by striking ``subsection (a)'' the first place that
term appears and inserting ``paragraphs (1) and (2) of
subsection (b)''; and
(B) by striking ``in each fiscal year pursuant to
subsection (a)'' and inserting ``in each fiscal year for
purposes described in paragraph (1) and (2) of subsection
(b)'';
(10) in subsection (i), as so redesignated, by striking the
second sentence; and
(11) by adding at the end the following:
``(j) Retention of Additional Officer Positions.--For any
grant under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (b) for hiring
or rehiring career law enforcement officers, a grant
recipient shall retain each additional law enforcement
officer position created under that grant for not less than
12 months after the end of the period of that grant, unless
the Attorney General waives, wholly or in part, the retention
requirement of a program, project, or activity.''.
(b) Applications.--Section 1702 of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd-1) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (c)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting ``,
unless waived by the Attorney General'' after ``under this
part shall'';
(B) by striking paragraph (8); and
(C) by redesignating paragraphs (9) through (11) as
paragraphs (8) through (10), respectively; and
(2) by striking subsection (d).
(c) Renewal of Grants.--Section 1703 of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd-2) is
amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 1703. RENEWAL OF GRANTS.

``(a) In General.--A grant made under this part may be
renewed, without limitations on the duration of such renewal,
to provide additional funds, if the Attorney General
determines that the funds made available to the recipient
were used in a manner required under an approved application
and if the recipient can demonstrate significant progress in
achieving the objectives of the initial application.
``(b) No Cost Extensions.--Notwithstanding subsection (a),
the Attorney General may extend a grant period, without
limitations as to the duration of such extension, to provide
additional time to complete the objectives of the initial
grant award.''.
(d) Limitation on Use of Funds.--Section 1704 of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3796dd-3) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``that would, in the
absence of Federal funds received under this part, be made
available from State or local sources'' and inserting ``that
the Attorney General determines would, in the absence of
Federal funds received under this part, be made available for
the purpose of the grant under this part from State or local
sources''; and
(2) by striking subsection (c).
(e) Enforcement Actions.--
(1) In general.--Section 1706 of the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd-5) is
amended--
(A) in the section heading, by striking ``REVOCATION OR
SUSPENSION OF FUNDING'' and inserting ``ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS''; and
(B) by striking ``revoke or suspend'' and all that follows
and inserting ``take any enforcement action available to the
Department of Justice.''.
(2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of
contents of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3711) is amended by striking
the item relating to section 1706 and inserting the
following:

``Sec. 1706. Enforcement actions.''.

(f) Definitions.--Section 1709(1) of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd-8(1))
is amended--
(1) by inserting ``who is a sworn law enforcement officer''
after ``permanent basis''; and
(2) by inserting ``, including officers for the Amtrak
Police Department'' before the period at the end.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1001(11) of
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3793(11)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``$1,047,119,000 for
each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009'' and inserting
``$1,150,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through
2014''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``3 percent'' and
inserting ``5 percent''; and
(B) by striking the second sentence and inserting the
following: ``Of the funds available for grants under part Q,
not less than $600,000,000 shall be used for grants for the
purposes specified in section 1701(b), not more than
$200,000,000 shall be used for grants under section 1701(d),
and not more than $350,000,000 shall be used for grants under
section 1701(e).''.
(h) Purposes.--Section 10002 of the Public Safety
Partnership and Community Policing Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C.
3796dd note) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``development'' and
inserting ``use''; and
(2) in the matter following paragraph (4), by striking
``for a period of 6 years''.
(i) COPS Program Improvements.--
(1) In general.--Section 109(b) of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3712h(b)) is
amended--
(A) by striking paragraph (1);
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(1) and (2), respectively; and
(C) in paragraph (2), as so redesignated, by inserting ``,
except for the program under part Q of this title'' before
the period.
(2) Law enforcement computer systems.--Section 107 of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3712f) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Exception.--This section shall not apply to any grant
made under part Q of this title.''.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Kohl,
Leahy, and others in introducing the COPS Improvement Act of 2009. I am
honored to join them in introducing this important bill on an issue
that has been so forcefully championed by Senator Biden for so many
years.
It is my sincere hope that we are entering the dawn of a new age in
our approach to State and local law enforcement funding. For the last 8
years, the Bush administration has steadily and drastically reduced the
amount of funding and programming that the Federal Government provides
to State and local law enforcement. This has been a huge mistake, with
a corresponding spike in the rise of violent crime in our country.
The need for additional funding for state and local law enforcement
through the COPS program is clear. Over the last 5 years, our country
has experienced an alarming increase in violent crime. In 2007, the
Police Executive Research Forum reported that from 2004 to 2006,
homicides increased overall by 10 percent, aggravated assaults with
guns rose 10 percent, and robberies rose 12 percent.
This survey mirrors the FBI's own statistics, which showed that
violent crime rose by 1.8 percent between 2003 to 2007. And this surge
in the violent crime rate isn't just limited to big cities. In February
2008, in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Attorney
General Mukasey acknowledged that violent crime was increasing across
all of our communities.
Let me put these numbers in human terms. The International
Association of Chiefs of Police equates the rise of 2.5 percent to
31,479 more victims of violent crimes in 2005. The 3.7 increase for all
of 2006 means about 47,000 more Americans were victims of murder,
robbery, assault, rape, or other violent crimes.
Unfortunately, despite these disturbing numbers and the Justice
Department's own acknowledgement that violent crime is increasing, over
the last 8 years the Bush administration continually proposed drastic
cuts in the Federal assistance traditionally available to state and
local law enforcement.
President Bush's proposed fiscal year 2009 budget slashed funding for
State and local law enforcement at unprecedented rates. After
repeatedly proposing to eliminate COPS hiring grants, President Bush
finally zeroed out the entire COPS program for fiscal year 2009,
replacing it with a mere $4 million for a new community policing grant.
This is simply not acceptable and our communities are suffering because
of it.
During the 1990s and earlier years in this decade, the federal
government vigorously funded grant programs for state and local law
enforcement, including the COPS Program. We saw real results--violent
crime went down year after year. It is no surprise that with the recent
cuts, violent crime rates have ticked back up.
This trend has to stop, and it is my hope that Congress and the
incoming Obama administration will move to correct the huge damage that
has been inflicted on state and local law enforcement in the last eight
years. The bill Senator Kohl and I introduce today will go a long way
to do that.
We know what works and we can see the results of ignoring and
underfunding proven programs. We also know that crime often rises in
times of economic trouble. Now is not the time to continue the
rollbacks in state and law enforcement funding initiated by the Bush
administration.
This bill will serve a dual purpose--creating thousands of jobs in
the current economic downturn and providing state and local law
enforcement with the resources they need to successfully fight crime.
Specifically, the bill would authorize $1.15 billion per year for the
next 6 years to fund the following:

[[Page S215]]

Police Hiring Grants: The bill authorizes $600 million per year to
hire up to 50,000 officers to work in community policing efforts, and
school resource officers to fight school violence. These funds will
create jobs in a worsening economy, and can be used to retain officers,
pay overtime costs, and reimburse officers for training costs.
Law Enforcement Technology Grants: The bill authorizes $350 million
per year for police departments to obtain new technology and equipment
to analyze real-time crime data and incident reports to anticipate
crime trends, map crime ``hot-spots'', examine DNA evidence, and
purchasing badly needed technology upgrades for police on the street.
Community Prosecutor Grants: The bill authorizes $200 million per
year to help local district attorneys hire and train more prosecutors.
Troops-to-Cops Program: The bill authorizes a troops-to-cops program
to encourage local police agencies to hire former military personnel
who are honorably discharged from military service or who are displaced
by base closings to allow them to continue working and engaging in
public service.
The COPS Program is a time-tested program that has proven its
effectiveness for years. It is one of the cornerstones in the State and
local law enforcement efforts that have removed thousands of pounds of
drugs and millions of dollars worth of drug proceeds from communities
across the country.
Money from the COPS Program provides law enforcement with the
officers, prosecutors and technology that they need to keep our
communities safe. All we have to do is look at the rising rates of
violent crime that correspond to the staggering funding cuts to
understand how important these programs are for our country.
We must provide the necessary tools and funds to State and local law
enforcement and act decisively to combat the nation's growing gang
problem and violent crime. Enacting the COPS Improvement Act of 2009
will be a step in the right direction. I hope my colleagues will join
Senator Kohl and I in supporting this important legislation.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Kyl, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs.
Hutchison, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Crapo, Mr.
Bingaman, Mr. Specter, Ms. Cantwell, and Mr. McCain):
S. 168. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to
provide for compensation to States incarcerating undocumented aliens
charged with a felony or 2 or more misdemeanors; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today the Senate Judiciary Committee
held a hearing entitled ``Helping State and Local Law Enforcement
During an Economic Downturn.'' Today Senator Kyl and I are introducing
a bill that will do just that. The SCAAP Reimbursement Protection Act
of 2009 will help to alleviate the costs of illegal immigration to
State and local governments by broadening the State Criminal Alien
Assistance Program, SCAAP, to ensure that States and localities are
eligible for reimbursement of the costs associated with incarcerating
criminal aliens.
We are joined today by Senators Boxer, Hutchinson, Schumer, Cornyn,
Durbin, Crapo, Bingaman, Specter, Cantwell, and McCain.
The burden of incarcerating criminal aliens weighs heavily on States,
especially during this time of economic uncertainty. California is home
to approximately 32 percent of the Nation's illegal immigrants and
spent over $950 million in 2008 alone to house these criminal aliens.
Understanding the expenses that States and localities bear, Congress
enacted SCAAP in 1994 to help reimburse States and localities for the
costs of incarcerating criminal aliens. Prior to 2003, the Department
of Justice interpreted the SCAAP statute to include reimbursement to
States and localities that are incurring costs of incarcerating
undocumented criminal aliens who have been accused or convicted of
State and local offenses and have been incarcerated for a minimum of 72
hours. After 2003, DOJ limited reimbursement to the amount States and
localities spend incarcerating convicted criminal aliens for at least 4
consecutive days.
Reimbursing States and localities only for the costs when a criminal
alien is convicted and incarcerated for 4 consecutive days
significantly undermines the goal of SCAAP that States and localities
should not bear the burden of a broken Federal immigration system. The
actual costs of this failed Federal system begin when these aliens are
charged with a crime, transported, and incarcerated for any length of
time.
This narrow interpretation is even more devastating because SCAAP is
consistently under-funded. The President has zeroed out SCAAP funding
in his budget proposals for the past 7 years. Through bipartisan
support, Congress was only able to partially fund the program.
As a result, SCAAP only reimburses States for a fraction of the costs
of incarcerating criminal aliens. In 2008, the California State
government will receive approximately $118 million in SCAAP funding.
However, it is estimated to cost the State approximately $960 million
each year for the incarceration of criminal aliens in California--$842
million above the reimbursement amount. The State of California is
therefore only being reimbursed for approximately 12 percent of its
actual costs to incarcerate illegal criminal aliens.
This cut has had a domino effect on public safety funding. For every
dollar less that SCAAP reimburses States, a dollar less is available
for critical public safety services. For example, after the SCAAP
funding cuts in 2003, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
implemented an ``early release'' policy for prisoners convicted of
misdemeanors.
I believe it is the Federal Government's responsibility to control
illegal immigration. The funding cuts imposed by the Bush
administration have let our local public safety services down, and have
made our communities less safe.
The SCAAP Reimbursement Protection Act of 2009 is good federal policy
to fix a failed Federal one--so that States are reimbursed for the full
costs of incarcerating aliens who are either charged with or convicted
of a felony or two misdemeanors.
This policy has the support of the National Sheriffs' Association,
California State Association of Counties, the U.S./Mexico Border
Counties Coalition, the Virginia Sheriffs' Association, the Los Angeles
County Sheriff Lee Baca, and the Sheriffs' Association of Texas, who
have all endorsed the bill I am reintroducing today.
Our colleagues in the House unanimously passed this companion bill
last Congress and I urge my colleagues in this chamber to join me in
supporting this much needed amendment to the SCAAP statute.
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. 168

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 ``SCAAP Reimbursement
Protection Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. ASSISTANCE FOR STATES INCARCERATING UNDOCUMENTED
ALIENS CHARGED WITH CERTAIN CRIMES.

Section 241(i)(3)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1231(i)(3)(A)) is amended by inserting ``charged
with or'' before ``convicted''.
______

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Inouye, Mr.
Rockefeller, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Reed, Ms.
Collins, and Mr. Nelson of Florida):
S. 171. A bill to develop and maintain an integrated system of
coastal and ocean observations for the Nation's coasts, oceans, and
Great Lakes, to improve warnings of tsunami, hurricanes, El Nino
events, and other natural hazards, to enhance homeland security, to
support maritime operations, to improve management of coastal and
marine resources, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coastal and
Ocean Observation System Act of 2009 and the NOAA Undersea Research
Program Act of 2009. These bills will greatly enhance our nation's
existing ocean

[[Page S216]]

observation and research capabilities and drastically improve our
understanding of the marine environment.
Oceans cover nearly three quarters of the Earth's surface, and have
great influence over our lives. They shape our weather and climate
systems, provide highways for international and domestic commerce,
sustain rich living and non-living resources on which many of our
livelihoods are based, and provide our nation over 95,000 miles of
shoreline which is the backbone of tourist and recreational activities
in many of our coastal states. Despite the constant, intricate
interaction between our lives on land and the natural systems of the
ocean, we know woefully little about the physical properties of the
overwhelming majority of our planet. What lies over the horizon
remains, by most accounts, a mystery.
Yet, the effects of those mysterious systems can be devastating. In
recent years, hurricanes, tsunamis, and other natural disasters have
devastated regions of our nation, and other parts of the world. Today,
we have the technology to monitor a wide range of ocean-based threats,
from destructive storms to quieter dangers such as harmful algal blooms
and man-made pollution. The purpose of the Coastal Ocean Observing
System Act is to put that technology to work predicting these threats
more accurately and, when possible, mitigating their impacts.
This bipartisan, science-based bill would authorize the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, to coordinate an
interagency network of ocean observing and communication systems around
our nation's coastlines. This system would collect instantaneous data
and information on ocean conditions--such as temperature, wave height,
wind speed, currents, dissolved oxygen, salinity, contaminants, and
other variables-- that are essential to marine science and resource
management and can be used to improve maritime transportation, safety,
and commerce. Such data would improve both short-term forecasting that
can mitigate impacts of major disasters, and prediction and scientific
analysis of long-term ocean and climate trends.
My home State of Maine currently participates in an innovative
partnership known as the Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System, or
GoMOOS. Launched in 2001, GoMOOS takes ocean and surface condition
measurements on a hourly basis through a network of linked buoys. These
data are subsequently made available via the GoMOOS website to
scientists, students, vessel captains, fishermen, and anyone else with
an interest in our oceans. The vast geographic range and frequency of
measurements has led to unprecedented developments in scientific
analysis of ocean conditions in the Gulf of Maine. It has also
contributed invaluable information to our region's assessments of
fisheries, weather conditions, and predictions of other ocean
phenomena.

Unfortunately, due to recent budget cuts within NOAA, in 2008 GoMOOS
was forced to remove several buoys from the water, compromising the
integrity of the system and reducing the quality of data available to
system users. The funding levels authorized in this bill will ensure
that this system, which has been shown to return $6 to the regional
economy for every dollar invested, will continue to grow and provide
its vital services to our maritime community.
Of course, the need to access this type of information is not limited
to the Gulf of Maine. In June 2006, the Joint Ocean Commission
Initiative, made up of members from the Pew Ocean Commission and the
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, presented to Congress a list of the
``top ten'' actions Congress should take to strengthen our ocean policy
regime. One of those priorities was ``enact legislation to authorize
and fund the Integrated Ocean Observing System.'' Ocean and coastal
observations are a cornerstone of sound marine science, management, and
commerce. This bill will save lives by allowing seafarers to better
monitor ocean conditions and providing timelier and more accurate
predictions of potentially catastrophic weather and seismic phenomena.
It will save taxpayers' dollars by reducing the emergency spending that
comes in the wake of unanticipated storms, and it will enhance the
appreciation and understanding of our oceans and coastal regions to
benefit all Americans.
I am very proud to introduce this bill, and I would like to thank my
cosponsors, Senators Cantwell, Inouye, Rockefeller, Landrieu, Kerry,
Boxer, Reed, Collins, and Bill Nelson for contributing to this
legislation and supporting this national initiative. Of course, our
current and expanding ocean observation and communication system would
not be possible without the work of dedicated professionals in the
ocean and coastal science, management, and research communities--they
have taken the initiative to develop the grassroots regional
observation systems as well as contribute to this legislation. Thanks
to their ongoing efforts, ocean observations will continue to provide a
tremendous service to the American public.
While my ocean observing legislation will greatly enhance our ability
to analyze and disseminate oceanographic and meteorological data, we
also face a shortfall in our Nation's ability to explore vast regions
of our undersea territory. Nearly 3 years ago the U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy released its long-awaited report, which noted that
approximately 95 percent of the ocean's floor remains uncharted
territory. If past experience is any indication, fascinating
discoveries await us in these vast unexplored areas. These regions are
sure to include species of marine life that are currently unknown to
science, archaeological and historical artifacts that can shed new
light on our past, and marine resources that may support our ongoing
quest for a sustainable future.
In 2004 the U.S. Ocean Policy Commissioners called for enhanced,
comprehensive national programs in ocean exploration, undersea
research, and ocean and coastal mapping. The vision of the
Commissioners, one that I share, is for well-funded and
interdisciplinary programs. Such programs are being led by NOAA, with
significant input from partners in other agencies, academia, and
industry, but currently they lack formal Congressional authorization.
This legislation would establish those programs, and provide a strong
foundation upon which we can continue to expand the quest for knowledge
to areas of the planet that have literally never been seen by human
eyes. I look forward to seeing these efforts enhanced under this
legislation.
I am proud to introduce this legislation today as well, and I thank
my cosponsors on this bill, Senators Inouye, and Rockefeller for their
support. I would also like to acknowledge my support for three other
oceans bills being introduced by my colleagues simultaneously with
these two bills: the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and
Monitoring Act, the Coastal and Estuarine Lands Protection Act, and the
Ocean and Coastal Mapping and Integration Act. All will be integral to
enhancing our nation's coasts and oceans and I am pleased to support my
colleagues' efforts by offering my cosponsorship of these three pieces
of legislation.
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. 171

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Coastal and Ocean
Observation System Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The United States Commission on Ocean Policy recommends
a national commitment to a sustained and integrated coastal
and ocean observing system and to coordinated research
programs which would provide vital information to assist the
Nation and the world in understanding, monitoring, and
predicting changes to the ocean and coastal resources and the
global climate system, enhancing homeland security, improving
weather and climate forecasts, strengthening management and
sustainable use of coastal and ocean resources, improving the
safety and efficiency of maritime operations, and mitigating
the impacts of marine hazards.
(2) The continuing and potentially devastating threat posed
by tsunami, hurricanes, storm surges, and other marine
hazards requires immediate implementation of strengthened
observation and communications, and data management systems
to provide timely detection, assessment, and warnings and to
support response strategies for

[[Page S217]]

the millions of people living in coastal regions of the
United States and throughout the world.
(3) Safeguarding homeland security, conducting search and
rescue operations, responding to natural and manmade coastal
hazards (such as oil spills and harmful algal blooms), and
managing fisheries and other coastal activities each require
improved understanding and monitoring of the Nation's waters,
coastlines, ecosystems, and resources, including the ability
to provide rapid response teams with real-time environmental
conditions necessary for their work.
(4) The 95,000-mile coastline of the United States,
including the Great Lakes, is vital to the Nation's
prosperity, contributing over $117 billion to the national
economy in 2000, supporting jobs for more than 200 million
Americans, handling $700 billion in waterborne commerce, and
supporting commercial and sport fisheries valued at more than
$50 billion annually.
(5) Ensuring the effective implementation of National and
State programs to protect unique coastal and ocean habitats,
such as wetlands and coral reefs, and living marine resources
requires a sustained program of research and monitoring to
understand these natural systems and detect changes that
could jeopardize their long term viability.
(6) Many elements of a coastal and ocean observing system
are in place, but require national investment, consolidation,
completion, and integration among international, Federal,
regional, State, and local elements.
(7) In 2003, the United States led more than 50 nations in
affirming the vital importance of timely, reliable, long-term
global observations as a basis for sound decision-making,
recognizing the contribution of observation systems to meet
national, regional, and global needs, and calling for
strengthened cooperation and coordination in establishing a
Global Earth Observation System of Systems, of which an
integrated coastal and ocean observing system is an essential
part.
(8) Protocols and reporting for observations, measurements,
and other data collection for a coastal and ocean observing
system should be standardized to facilitate data use and
dissemination.
(9) Key variables, including temperature, salinity, sea
level, surface currents, ocean color, nutrients, and
variables, such as acidity, that may indicate the occurrence
and impacts of ocean acidification, should be collected to
address a variety of informational needs.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to establish an
integrated national system of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes
observing systems to address regional and national needs for
ocean information and to provide for--
(1) the planning, development, implementation, and
maintenance of an integrated coastal and ocean observing
system that provides data and information to sustain and
restore healthy marine, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems
and manage the resources they support, aid marine navigation
safety and national security, support economic development,
enable advances in scientific understanding of the oceans and
the Great Lakes, and strengthen science education and
communication;
(2) implementation of research, development, education, and
outreach programs to improve understanding of the marine
environment and achieve the full national benefits of an
integrated coastal and ocean observing system;
(3) implementation of a data, information management, and
modeling system required by all components of an integrated
coastal and ocean observing system and related research to
develop early warning systems to more effectively predict and
mitigate impacts of natural hazards, improve weather and
climate forecasts, conserve healthy and restore degraded
coastal ecosystems, and ensure usefulness of data and
information for users; and
(4) establishment of a network of regional associations to
operate and maintain regional coastal and ocean observing
systems to ensure fulfillment of national objectives at
regional scales and to address State and local needs for
ocean information and data products.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means
Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
(2) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the National Ocean
Research Leadership Council established by section 7902 of
title 10, United States Code.
(3) Interagency ocean observation committee.--The term
``Interagency Ocean Observation Committee'' means the
committee established under section 4(d).
(4) National oceanographic partnership program.--The term
``National Oceanographic Partnership Program'' means the
program established under section 7901 of title 10, United
States Code.
(5) Observing system.--The term ``observing system'' means
the integrated coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes observing
system to be established by the Council under section 4(a).
(6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Commerce, acting through the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.

SEC. 4. INTEGRATED COASTAL AND OCEAN OBSERVING SYSTEM.

(a) Establishment.--The President, acting through the
Council, shall establish and maintain an integrated system of
coastal and ocean observations, data communication and
management, analysis, modeling, research, education, and
outreach designed to understand current conditions and
provide data and information for the timely detection and
prediction of changes occurring in the ocean, coastal and
Great Lakes environments that impact the Nation's social,
economic, and ecological systems. The observing system shall
provide for long-term, continuous and quality-controlled
observations of the Nation's coasts, oceans, and Great Lakes
in order to--
(1) understand the effects of human activities and natural
variability on and improve the health of the Nation's coasts,
oceans, and Great Lakes;
(2) monitor key variables including temperature, salinity,
sea level, surface currents, ocean color, nutrients, and
variables, such as acidity, that may indicate the occurrence
and impacts of ocean acidification;
(3) measure, track, explain, and predict climatic and
environmental changes and protect human lives and livelihoods
from hazards such as tsunami, hurricanes, storm surges,
coastal erosion, levy breaches, and fluctuating water levels;
(4) supply critical information to marine-related
businesses such as marine transportation, aquaculture,
fisheries, and offshore energy production and aid marine
navigation and safety;
(5) support national defense and homeland security efforts;
(6) support the sustainable use, conservation, management,
and enjoyment of healthy ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes
resources, better understand the interactions of ocean
processes within the coastal zone, and support implementation
and refinement of ecosystem-based management and restoration;
(7) support the protection of critical coastal habitats,
such as coral reefs and wetlands, and unique ecosystems and
resources;
(8) educate the public about the role and importance of the
oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes in daily life; and
(9) support research and development to ensure improvement
to ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes observation measurements
and to enhance understanding of the Nation's ocean, coastal,
and Great Lakes resources.
(b) System Elements.--In order to fulfill the purposes of
this Act, the observing system shall consist of the following
program elements:
(1) A national program to fulfill national and
international observation priorities.
(2) A network of regional associations to manage the
regional coastal and ocean observing and information programs
that collect, measure, and disseminate data and information
products.
(3) Data management, communication, and modeling systems
for the timely integration and dissemination of data and
information products from the national and regional systems.
(4) A research and development program conducted under the
guidance of the Council, including projects under the
National Oceanographic Partnership Program, consisting of the
following:
(A) Basic research to advance knowledge of coastal and
ocean systems and ensure improvement of operational products,
including related infrastructure, observing technology, and
information technology.
(B) Focused research and technology development projects to
improve understanding of the relationship between the coasts
and oceans and human activities.
(C) Large scale computing resources and research to advance
modeling of coastal and ocean processes.
(5) A coordinated outreach, education, and training program
that integrates and augments existing programs (such as the
National Sea Grant College Program, the Centers for Ocean
Sciences Education Excellence program, and the National
Estuarine Research Reserve System), to ensure the use of data
and information for improving public education and awareness
of the Nation's coastal and ocean environment and building
the technical expertise required to operate and improve the
observing system.
(c) Council Functions.--The Council shall serve as the
oversight body for the design and implementation of all
aspects of the observing system. In carrying out its
responsibilities under this section, the Council shall--
(1) adopt plans, budgets, and standards that are developed
and maintained by the Interagency Ocean Observation Committee
in consultation with the regional associations;
(2) coordinate the observing system with other earth
observing activities including the Global Ocean Observing
System and the Global Earth Observing System of Systems;
(3) coordinate and approve programs of intramural and
extramural research, technology development, education, and
outreach to support improvements to and the operation of an
integrated coastal and ocean observing system and to advance
the understanding of the oceans;
(4) promote development of technology and methods for
improving the observing system;
(5) support the development of institutional mechanisms and
financial instruments to further the goals of the program and
provide for the capitalization of the required
infrastructure;
(6) provide, as appropriate, support for and representation
on United States delegations to international meetings on
coastal and

[[Page S218]]

ocean observing programs, including those under the
jurisdiction of the International Joint Commission involving
Canadian waters; and
(7) in consultation with the Secretary of State, support
coordination of relevant Federal activities with those of
other nations.
(d) Interagency Ocean Observation Committee.--
(1) Establishment.--The Council shall establish an
Interagency Ocean Observation Committee.
(2) Responsibilities.--The Interagency Ocean Observing
Committee shall be responsible for program planning and
coordination of the implementation of the observing system.
(3) Duties.--The Interagency Ocean Observing Committee
shall report to the Council and shall--
(A) prepare annual and long-term plans for consideration
and approval by the Council for the design and implementation
of the observing system that promote collaboration among
Federal agencies and regional associations in developing
global, national, and regional observing systems, including
identification and refinement of a core set of variables to
be measured by all systems;
(B) coordinate the development of agency and regional
associations priorities and budgets to implement, operate,
and maintain the observing systems;
(C) establish and refine standards and protocols for data
collection, management and communications, including quality
control standards, in consultation with participating Federal
agencies and regional associations;
(D) establish a process for assuring compliance for all
participating entities with the standards and protocols for
data management and communications, including quality control
standards;
(E) integrate, improve, and extend existing programs and
research projects, and ensure that regional associations are
integrated into the operational observation system on a
sustained basis;
(F) provide for the migration of scientific and
technological advances from research and development to
operational deployment; and
(G) perform such duties as the Council may delegate.
(4) Implementation.--There is established an Interagency
Program Coordinating Office. The Office shall be--
(A) located in, but is not an office of, the Department of
Commerce; and
(B) staffed by employees of agencies represented on the
Interagency Ocean Observation Committee, to facilitate the
Interagency Ocean Observation Committee's responsibilities
for system implementation, budgeting, and administration.
(e) Role of NOAA.--The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration shall provide leadership for the
implementation and administration of the observing system, in
consultation with the Council, the Interagency Ocean
Observation Committee, other Federal agencies that maintain
portions of the observing system and the regional
associations, and shall--
(1) establish an Integrated Ocean Observing Program Office
to facilitate action under the Administration's leadership;
(2) implement a merit-based funding process to support the
activities of regional associations;
(3) provide opportunities for competitive contracts and
grants to design, develop, integrate, deploy, and support
ocean observation system elements;
(4) have the authority to enter into and perform such
contracts, leases, grants, or cooperative agreements as may
be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act and on
such terms as the Administrator deems appropriate;
(5) establish efficient and effective administrative
procedures for allocation of funds among contractors,
grantees, and regional associations in a timely manner, and
contingent on appropriations according to the budget adopted
by the Council;
(6) develop and implement a process for the certification
and assimilation into the national ocean observations network
of the regional associations and their periodic review and
recertification and certify regional associations that meet
the requirements of subsection (f); and
(7) develop a data management and communication system, in
accordance with the established standards and protocols, by
which all data collected by the observing system regarding
coastal waters of the United States are integrated and
available.
(f) Regional Associations of Coastal and Ocean Observing
Systems.--
(1) The Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding to
establish a process for the certification of regional
associations to be responsible for the development and
operation of regional coastal and ocean observing systems to
meet the information needs of user groups in the region while
adhering to national standards. To be certified a regional
association shall meet the certification standards developed
by the Interagency Ocean Observing Committee in conjunction
with the regional associations and approved by the Council
and shall--
(A) demonstrate an organizational structure capable of
supporting and integrating all aspects of coastal and ocean
observing and information programs within a region and that
reflects broad representation from State and local
government, commercial interests, and other users and
beneficiaries of marine information;
(B) operate under a strategic operations and business plan
that details the operation and support of regional coastal
and ocean observing systems pursuant to the standards
approved by the Council; and
(C) work with governmental entities and programs at all
levels to identify and provide information products of the
observing system for multiple users in the region to advance
outreach and education, to improve coastal and fishery
management, safe and efficient marine navigation, weather and
climate prediction, to enhance preparation for hurricanes,
tsunami, and other natural hazards, and other appropriate
activities.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, employees of Federal
agencies may participate in the functions of the regional
associations.
(g) Civil Liability.--For purposes of section 1346(b)(1)
and chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, the Suits in
Admiralty Act (46 U.S.C. App. 741 et seq.), and the Public
Vessels Act (46 U.S.C. App. 781 et seq.), any regional
coastal and ocean observing system that is a designated part
of a regional association certified under this section shall,
with respect to tort liability arising from the dissemination
and use of the data, in carrying out the purposes of this
Act, be deemed to be part of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, and any employee of such system,
while operating within the scope of his or her employment in
carrying out such purposes, shall be deemed to be an employee
of the Government.

SEC. 5. PROCESS FOR TRANSITION FROM RESEARCH TO OPERATION.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in
consultation with the Council, shall formulate a process by
which--
(1) funding is made available for intramural and extramural
research on new technologies for collecting data regarding
coastal and ocean waters of the United States;
(2) such technologies are tested including--
(A) accelerated research into biological and chemical
sensing techniques and satellite sensors for collecting such
data; and
(B) developing technologies to improve all aspects of the
observing system, especially the timeliness and accuracy of
its predictive models and the usefulness of its information
products; and
(3) funding is made available and a plan is developed and
executed to transition technology that has been demonstrated
to be useful for the observing system is incorporated into
use by the observing system.

SEC. 6. INTERAGENCY FINANCING.

The departments and agencies represented on the Council are
authorized to participate in interagency financing and share,
transfer, receive, obligate, and expend funds appropriated to
any member of the Council for the purposes of carrying out
any administrative or programmatic project or activity under
this Act or under the National Oceanographic Partnership
Program, including support for the Interagency Oceans
Observation Committee, a common infrastructure, and system
integration for a coastal and ocean observing system. Funds
may be transferred among such departments and agencies
through an appropriate instrument that specifies the goods,
services, or space being acquired from another Council member
and the costs of the same.

SEC. 7. APPLICATION WITH OTHER LAWS.

Nothing in this Act supersedes or limits the authority of
any agency to carry out its responsibilities and missions
under other laws.

SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for the implementation
of this Act, $150,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009
through 2011 and $175,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2012
and 2013. At least 50 percent of these sums shall be
allocated to the regional associations certified under
section 4(f) for implementation of regional coastal and ocean
observing systems.

SEC. 9. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.

Not later than 12 months after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Congress and the
Council a plan for implementation of this Act, including
for--
(1) coordinating activities of the Secretary under this Act
with other Federal agencies; and
(2) distributing, to regional associations, funds available
to carry out this Act.

SEC. 10. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

(a) Requirement.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
the enactment of this Act and every 2 years thereafter, the
Administrator shall prepare and the President acting through
the Council shall approve and transmit to the Congress a
report on progress made in implementing this Act.
(b) Contents.--The report shall include the following:
(1) A description of activities carried out under the
implementation plan and this Act.
(2) An evaluation of the effectiveness of the observing
system.
(3) Benefits of the program to users of data products
resulting from the observing system (including the general
public, industry, scientists, resource managers, emergency
responders, policy makers, and educators).
(4) Recommendations concerning--
(A) modifications to the observing system; and
(B) funding levels for the observing system in subsequent
fiscal years.

[[Page S219]]

(5) The results of a periodic external independent
programmatic audit of the observing system.
______

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Inouye, and Mr. Rockefeller):
S. 172. A bill to establish a coordinated national ocean exploration
program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Ms. SNOWE. 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. 172

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 ``NOAA Ocean Exploration and
Undersea Research Program Act of 2009''.

TITLE I--OCEAN EXPLORATION

SEC. 101. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this title is to establish the national
ocean exploration program and the national undersea research
program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.

SEC. 102. PROGRAM ESTABLISHED.

The Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration shall, in consultation with the National
Science Foundation and other appropriate Federal agencies,
establish a coordinated national ocean exploration program
within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
that promotes collaboration with other Federal ocean and
undersea research and exploration programs. To the extent
appropriate, the Administrator shall seek to facilitate
coordination of data and information management systems,
outreach and education programs to improve public
understanding of ocean and coastal resources, and development
and transfer of technologies to facilitate ocean and undersea
research and exploration.

SEC. 103. POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE ADMINISTRATOR.

(a) In General.--In carrying out the program authorized by
section 102, the Administrator of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration shall--
(1) conduct interdisciplinary voyages or other scientific
activities in conjunction with other Federal agencies or
academic or educational institutions, to explore and survey
little known areas of the marine environment, inventory,
observe, and assess living and nonliving marine resources,
and report such findings;
(2) give priority attention to deep ocean regions, with a
focus on deep water marine systems that hold potential for
important scientific discoveries, such as hydrothermal vent
communities and seamounts;
(3) conduct scientific voyages to locate, define, and
document historic shipwrecks, submerged sites, and other
ocean exploration activities that combine archaeology and
oceanographic sciences;
(4) develop and implement, in consultation with the
National Science Foundation, a transparent, competitive
process for merit-based peer-review and approval of proposals
for activities to be conducted under this program, taking
into consideration advice of the Board established under
section 105;
(5) enhance the technical capability of the United States
marine science community by promoting the development of
improved oceanographic research, communication, navigation,
and data collection systems, as well as underwater platforms
and sensor and autonomous vehicles; and
(6) establish an ocean exploration forum to encourage
partnerships and promote communication among experts and
other stakeholders in order to enhance the scientific and
technical expertise and relevance of the national program.
(b) Donations.--The Administrator may accept donations of
property, data, and equipment to be applied for the purpose
of exploring the oceans or increasing knowledge of the
oceans.

SEC. 104. OCEAN EXPLORATION AND UNDERSEA RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY
AND INFRASTRUCTURE TASK FORCE.

(a) In General.-- The Administrator of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, in coordination with the
National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, the United States Geological Survey,
the Department of the Navy, the Mineral Management Service,
and relevant governmental, non-governmental, academic,
industry, and other experts, shall convene an ocean
exploration and undersea research technology and
infrastructure task force to develop and implement a
strategy--
(1) to facilitate transfer of new exploration and undersea
research technology to the programs authorized under this
Act;
(2) to improve availability of communications
infrastructure, including satellite capabilities, to such
programs;
(3) to develop an integrated, workable, and comprehensive
data management information processing system that will make
information on unique and significant features obtained by
such programs available for research and management purposes;
(4) to conduct public outreach activities that improve the
public understanding of ocean science, resources, and
processes, in conjunction with relevant programs of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National
Science Foundation, and other agencies; and
(5) to encourage cost-sharing partnerships with
governmental and nongovernmental entities that will assist in
transferring exploration and undersea research technology and
technical expertise to the programs.
(b) Budget Coordination.--The task force shall coordinate
the development of agency budgets and identify the items in
their annual budget that support the activities identified in
the strategy developed under subsection (a).

SEC. 105. OCEAN EXPLORATION ADVISORY BOARD.

(a) Establishment.--The Administrator of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shall appoint an Ocean
Exploration Advisory Board composed of experts in relevant
fields--
(1) to advise the Administrator on priority areas for
survey and discovery;
(2) to assist the program in the development of a 5-year
strategic plan for the fields of ocean, marine, and Great
Lakes science, exploration, and discovery;
(3) to annually review the quality and effectiveness of the
proposal review process established under section 103(a)(4);
and
(4) to provide other assistance and advice as requested by
the Administrator.
(b) Federal Advisory Committee Act.--Section 14 of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not
apply to the Board appointed under subsection (a).
(c) Application with Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.--
Nothing in this title supersedes, or limits the authority of
the Secretary of the Interior under the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.).

SEC. 106. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to carry out this
title--
(1) $33,550,000 for fiscal year 2009;
(2) $36,905,000 for fiscal year 2010;
(3) $40,596,000 for fiscal year 2011;
(4) $44,655,000 for fiscal year 2012;
(5) $49,121,000 for fiscal year 2013;
(6) $54,033,000 for fiscal year 2014; and
(7) $59,436,000 for fiscal year 2015.

TITLE II--UNDERSEA RESEARCH PROGRAM

SEC. 201. PROGRAM ESTABLISHED.

(a) In General.--The Administrator of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration shall establish and maintain
an undersea research program and shall designate a Director
of that program.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of the program is to increase
scientific knowledge essential for the informed management,
use, and preservation of oceanic, marine, and coastal areas
and the Great Lakes.

SEC. 202. POWERS OF PROGRAM DIRECTOR.

The Director of the program, in carrying out the program,
shall--
(1) cooperate with institutions of higher education and
other educational marine and ocean science organizations, and
shall make available undersea research facilities, equipment,
technologies, information, and expertise to support undersea
research efforts by these organizations;
(2) enter into partnerships, as appropriate and using
existing authorities, with the private sector to achieve the
goals of the program and to promote technological advancement
of the marine industry; and
(3) coordinate the development of agency budgets and
identify the items in their annual budget that support the
activities described in paragraphs (1) and (2).

SEC. 203. ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE.

(a) In General.--The program shall be conducted through a
national headquarters, a network of extramural regional
undersea research centers that represent all relevant
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration regions, and
the National Institute for Undersea Science and Technology.
(b) Direction.--The Director shall develop the overall
direction of the program in coordination with a Council of
Center Directors comprised of the directors of the extramural
regional centers and the National Institute for Undersea
Science and Technology. The Director shall publish a draft
program direction document not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this Act in the Federal Register for a
public comment period of not less than 120 days. The Director
shall publish a final program direction, including responses
to the comments received during the public comment period, in
the Federal Register within 90 days after the close of the
comment period. The program director shall update the program
direction, with opportunity for public comment, at least
every 5 years.

SEC. 204. RESEARCH, EXPLORATION, EDUCATION AND TECHNOLOGY
PROGRAMS.

(a) In General.--The following research, exploration,
education, and technology programs shall be conducted through
the network of regional centers and the National Institute
for Undersea Science and Technology:
(1) Core research and exploration based on national and
regional undersea research priorities.
(2) Advanced undersea technology development to support the
National Oceanic and

[[Page S220]]

Atmospheric Administration's research mission and programs.
(3) Undersea science-based education and outreach programs
to enrich ocean science education and public awareness of the
oceans and Great Lakes.
(4) Development, testing, and transition of advanced
undersea technology associated with ocean observatories,
submersibles, advanced diving technologies, remotely operated
vehicles, autonomous underwater vehicles, and new sampling
and sensing technologies.
(5) Discovery, study, and development of natural resources
and products from ocean, coastal, and aquatic systems.
(b) Operations.--The Director of the program, through
operation of the extramural regional centers and the National
Institute for Undersea Science and Technology, shall leverage
partnerships and cooperative research with academia and
private industry.

SEC. 205. COMPETITIVENESS.

(a) Discretionary Fund.--The Program shall allocate no more
than 10 percent of its annual budget to a discretionary fund
that may be used only for program administration and priority
undersea research projects identified by the Director but not
covered by funding available from centers.
(b) Competitive Selection.--The Administrator shall conduct
an initial competition to select the regional centers that
will participate in the program 90 days after the publication
of the final program direction under section 203 and every 5
years thereafter. Funding for projects conducted through the
regional centers shall be awarded through a competitive,
merit-reviewed process on the basis of their relevance to the
goals of the program and their technical feasibility.

SEC. 206. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to carry out this
title--
(1) for fiscal year 2009--
(A) $13,750,000 for the regional centers, of which 50
percent shall be for West Coast regional centers and 50
percent shall be for East Coast regional centers; and
(B) $5,500,000 for the National Technology Institute;
(2) for fiscal year 2010--
(A) $15,125,000 for the regional centers, of which 50
percent shall be for West Coast regional centers and 50
percent shall be for East Coast regional centers; and
(B) $6,050,000 for the National Technology Institute;
(3) for fiscal year 2011--
(A) $16,638,000 for the regional centers, of which 50
percent shall be for West Coast regional centers and 50
percent shall be for East Coast regional centers; and
(B) $6,655,000 for the National Technology Institute;
(4) for fiscal year 2012--
(A) $18,301,000 for the regional centers, of which 50
percent shall be for West Coast regional centers and 50
percent shall be for East Coast regional centers; and
(B) $7,321,000 for the National Technology Institute;
(5) for fiscal year 2013--
(A) $20,131,000 for the regional centers, of which 50
percent shall be for West Coast regional centers and 50
percent shall be for East Coast regional centers; and
(B) $8,053,000 for the National Technology Institute;
(6) for fiscal year 2014--
(A) $22,145,000 for the regional centers, of which 50
percent shall be for West Coast regional centers and 50
percent shall be for East Coast regional centers; and
(B) $8,859,000 for the National Technology Institute; and
(7) for fiscal year 2015--
(A) $24,359,000 for the regional centers, of which 50
percent shall be for West Coast regional centers and 50
percent shall be for East Coast regional centers; and
(B) $9,744,000 for the National Technology Institute.
______

By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 175. A bill to evaluate certain skills certification programs, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I introduce a straight-forward
bill that is a first step toward helping American workers and
businesses. This bill is part of my E-4 Initiative, which focuses on
issues affecting the economy, energy, education and employment. The
Skills Standards Certification Evaluation Act will require the
Secretaries of Labor, Education and Commerce to evaluate skills
standards certification programs that have been developed with federal
funding.
Skills Standards Certifications have emerged over the past two
decades in response to job growth in high-technology and varied
industries. The training or classes usually take weeks or months,
rather than years. Often, they are developed in response to the needs
of one industry or even one company, though the skills are often
applicable more widely.
As the President-elect and Congress work to save and create jobs
through additional funding for infrastructure, green jobs, and similar
programs, among other things, it is even more critical that employers
be able to find qualified workers for a variety of positions. Workers
who can easily demonstrate their skills quickly and easily will be able
to benefit from such investments early on.
Over the past two decades, the Federal Government has taken
conflicting approaches to skills standards certifications. That is why,
as part of the Skills Standards Certification Evaluation Act, I require
a recommendation from the Secretaries of Labor and Commerce on how
Congress ought to move forward with funding for these certification
programs. Both the national, top-down, and a local, bottom-up approach
have been tried, and a thorough evaluation will make clear how we can
move forward to get the most out of the funding the Federal Government
provides.
These certifications have a tremendous benefit for workers. First,
because the training is often condensed into a few weeks with a
flexible schedule, it allows people to complete certifications without
leaving a current job and without the financial cost of attending a
full-time program that lasts a year or more. In addition, these
programs allow workers to clearly demonstrate a certain set of skills,
and may open more doors for higher-paying employment. Because these
programs can be completed without leaving work, they also allow workers
to advance within a career or company to more skilled positions and
better wages and benefits.
For employers, Skills Standards Certifications can simplify the
search for employees. I have heard from numerous Wisconsin employers,
especially small businesses with limited resources, that it is hard to
find employees with the skills they need, or who will be dedicated and
loyal. Skills Standards Certifications clearly show the qualification
of an individual, of course, but also tell the employer that he or she
is dedicated enough to invest in the course to earn the certificate.
Very few people will spend the time and money to enroll in such a
program if they don't intend to use the certificate.
Lastly, these programs can help state and local governments quantify
their skilled workforce, which can be invaluable when marketing the
area to businesses and investment.
This bill is a small first step in what I hope can be a continuing
effort to help hard-working Americans obtain and use high-demand work
skills.
______

By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 176. A bill to improve the job access and reverse commute program,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I reintroduce a piece of my E4
initiative, so named because it is a collection of proposals that
address issues important to the economy, education, employment and
energy. This piece of the E4 legislation focuses on the important
supporting role that transportation can play in economic development by
creating an environment where employers and those seeking employment or
better employment are connected together. Having such a system to
overcome transportation hurdles can benefit both employers and
employees, as well as the local economy and is all the more important
in these difficult economic times.
In more general terms, investing in our infrastructure like roads,
bridges and transit systems can have direct job creation impacts. This
is one reason I have fought hard with the rest of the delegation for a
fair rate of return for Wisconsin from the highway bill. It is also why
in a letter I sent to President-elect Obama and Senate leaders I
included highway and transit projects as part of a variety of ready-to-
go infrastructure projects that should be included in the forthcoming
economic recovery program.
In addition to supporting transportation-related jobs, linking
workers and businesses that need them can also be an important part of
a more comprehensive job creation strategy. This can mean supporting a
robust public transportation system or more specific programs designed
to link low-income individuals with jobs. I have consistently done the
former by supporting

[[Page S221]]

public transportation during consideration of the highway bill and
Amtrak reauthorizations. But my specific proposal today focuses on the
latter and improving the Job Access and Reverse Commute, JARC, program
that links low-income workers with employers.
I have heard good things about the JARC program and was glad that it
was shifted away from earmarks and was made available as a combination
formula and competitively awarded program in the last highway bill. The
primary program goal is to locally assess the transportation needs of
low-income workers and then plan and fund programs to help alleviate
transportation-related barriers to employment or better employment.
While initially this may have been viewed as a way to support reverse
commute projects whereby transit routes were established to allow city
center residents to access jobs in the suburbs, the program actually
does much more than just this and provides reliable transportation to
low-income urban, rural and suburban workers.
In Wisconsin, the Federal JARC program is jointly administered by the
State departments of transportation and workforce development as the
Wisconsin Employment Transportation Assistance Program, WETAP.
According to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, transportation
barriers can include a lack of a dependable vehicle or bus service in
the area, an absence of local jobs, or childcare transportation
problems. The State agencies in Wisconsin have found several different
types of projects to be effective depending on the local circumstances.
These projects have included the traditional public transit projects
such as extending bus lines or supporting van-pooling, along with other
programs such as providing cars or car repairs to low-income
individuals. Wisconsin has even found that assisting with indirect
barriers such as transportation of children to and from childcare
facilities is critical in allowing some individuals to improve their
job prospects.
A recent University of Illinois Chicago, UIC, study found that the
societal benefits from this program are $1.65 per dollar spent and
estimates lifetime benefits to low income participants of $15 per
dollar spent due to their ability to find and retain better paying
jobs. While the goals of the Job Access and Reverse Commute program are
important and the program has been found to be fairly effective, there
are some details that have prevented the program from reaching its full
potential. Working closely with transportation officials in Wisconsin
and partially based on recommendations from the UIC study, I've come up
with some specific ideas to improve the program.
With a proven effective program and continuing unmet needs by
employers and low-income individuals seeking employment, JARC could use
a boost in funding. So that is why my proposal ramps up funding by $100
million over 5 years from the current funding of $165 million to $265
million in fiscal year 2014.
My proposal would also allow the Federal share of projects to
increase to 80 percent from the current 50 percent level for operating
expenses. The 50 percent local and State match wasn't feasible for far
too many local governments in Wisconsin and as a result Wisconsin has
not been able to spend all its Federal funds. The higher Federal cost
share will better balance the need to leverage Federal funds, while
ensuring that these critical funds are fully utilized--millions of
dollars in an account does nothing to link people to jobs.
Besides the challenge in coming up with a 50 percent local cost
share, the other main issue that has kept JARC from being as effective
as it could be is the paperwork and reporting burden required by the
program, especially for the small nonprofit groups that often have
never dealt with Federal grant requirements before. My proposal directs
the Federal Transit Agency, FTA, to examine the current reporting
requirements to see if there are ways to streamline the amount of
paperwork required while still ensuring that the program goals are met.
My bill also includes a pilot program funded at $10 million a year
for 5 years in order to test a few areas that seem very promising, but
should be evaluated more fully before broader implementation. The first
portion of the pilot program builds off the regulatory streamlining
evaluation and allows the FTA to test streamlined reporting
requirements to help get the balance between oversight and
administrative burden right.
The second part of the pilot program focuses on improving education-
and employment-related transportation for teens and young adults.
Enabling students and young people to reliably get between their high
schools or neighborhoods and technical colleges, job training centers
or apprenticeships can have a lifelong positive impact.
The third section of the pilot program would allow experimentation
with combining different transit programs and integrating JARC projects
across local political boundaries to provide a more comprehensive local
transportation system. Instead of having one transit program to assist
the disabled, one targeted toward the elderly and another focused on
jobs, this pilot program would encourage funding combined applications
to meet these needs together with one comprehensive project. There is
even the potential for the Department of Transportation to further
coordinate with other departments such as Health and Human Services for
healthcare-related transportation. Similarly, the needs of employers
for employees do not recognize local political boundaries, so
encouraging greater collaboration between local entities to make a more
robust interconnected system should ultimately provide more efficient
and effective service.
While the FTA already provides some technical assistance for the JARC
program, my proposal provides a small boost in funding and some
additional areas of emphasis. For example, after hearing about the
struggles that some small nonprofits have with the reporting
requirements, in addition to looking for ways to streamline the
requirements, my proposal would direct the FTA to also provide some
technical assistance especially targeted to this need.
The final element of my proposal is the offset. The new spending
authorized in the proposal is fully offset by rescinding highway and
bridge earmarks that have not had funds spent from them despite being
authorized over a decade ago as part of the TEA-21 highway bill.
Helping connect workers and employers is a much better use of these
funds than letting them sit unused in some obscure DOT account.
Providing reliable transportation to low-income individuals only goes
so far--it is the companies and innovators creating the jobs and the
individuals seeking to better their lot through education or more
challenging employment, that are doing the heavy lifting. That being
said, transportation can clearly be a challenge for companies and
workers and in the case of the JARC program can play an important
supporting role.
______

By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 177. A bill to amend the Small Business Act to extend the Small
Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer
programs, to increase the allocation of Federal agency grants for these
programs, to add water, energy, transportation, and domestic security
related research to the list of topics deserving special consideration,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, we are all aware of the serious
challenges our economy faces in the short term and the urgency of our
need to promote job creation and economic development. I am committed
to engaging in this broad effort with my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle. But it is essential that our efforts not just be short term
fixes--they must not only aim to create jobs and investment
opportunities in the short term, they must be part of strategic efforts
to strengthen our Nation's innovation capabilities and sustain long
term economic development in a changing and competitive global
environment. There is no better way to do this than by stimulating and
supporting small business innovation, especially in areas of national
priority. As part of this effort, today I am introducing the
Strengthening Our Economy Through Small Business Innovation Act of
2009.
Job growth, innovation and economic development are driven by our
small

[[Page S222]]

businesses. Small businesses also tend to be based in our cities and
communities and so they are major contributors to our local economies.
Half of our county's payroll jobs and most of our new job opportunities
are provided by small businesses. Small businesses are proven
innovators and drive commercialization of cutting edge technologies.
Not only are small businesses our major source of employment, they
employ about one third of our country's scientists and engineers and
generate more patents on a per capita basis than large businesses and
universities. They also are effective partners with universities to
enhance product creation, develop university income and attract
university graduates and faculty through increased innovative job
opportunities.
Over the last 25 years, through the Small Business Innovation and
Research program, SBIR, and, more recently, the Small Business
Technology Transfer program, STTR, up to 2.5 percent and 0.3 percent,
respectively, of Federal R&D funds from 11 Federal agencies have been
specifically allocated to our Nation's small businesses to fund
innovation. These small business allocations are not sufficient. We
must diversify and strengthen innovation capabilities and our economic
base, and to accomplish this we must extend and increase R&D
allocations to our Nation's innovative small businesses.
My bill does 3 things. First, it extends the SBIR and STTR programs
for a further 14 years so that small businesses, as well as
universities and non-profit research organizations that collaborate
with small businesses, can continue to leverage Federal research and
development funding.
Second, it significantly increases the allocation of funds and the
awards from large Federal research and development budgets to small
businesses through the SBIR and STTR programs. It would increase the
SBIR allocation from its current 2.5 percent to 10 percent and the STTR
allocation from 0.3 percent to 1.0 percent over a 3-year period. It
would increase SBIR phase I awards from $100,000 to $300,000 and phase
II awards from $750,000 to $2.2 million. Third, it identifies specific
funding priorities for energy innovation; safe and secure water;
domestic security; and transportation.
The SBIR program is tested, successful and worthy of extension. In
its comprehensive study of the SBIR program, the National Research
Council found that the program ``is sound in concept and effective in
practice''; was ``stimulating technological innovation''; ``linking
universities to the public and private markets''; ``increasing private
sector commercialization of innovations'' at an ``impressive'' rate;
and ``providing widely distributed support for innovation activity.''
The study concluded that:

[T]he program is proving effective in meeting Congressional
objectives. It is increasing innovation, encouraging
participation by small companies in R&D, providing support
for small firms owned by minorities and women, and resolving
research questions for mission agencies in a cost effective
manner. Should the Congress wish to provide additional funds
for the program in support of these objectives, those funds
could be employed effectively by the nation's SBIR.

The NRC's study also found that universities and other non-profit
research institutions would benefit significantly from the increase in
both the SBIR and the STTR programs. In particular, the STTR allocation
increase will directly benefit universities and efforts to bring
university-based research into the commercial marketplace, as a
partnership with a non-profit research institution, such as a
university, is a requirement of all STTR award recipients. Many of the
small businesses that receive SBIR funding are rooted in the university
infrastructure so investigators and graduates from universities will
have opportunities to be part of commercial developments. More than
two-thirds of SBIR companies report that at least one founder was
previously an academic. About one-third of SBIR company founders were
most recently employed as academics before founding the company. Over a
third of SBIR projects cite direct university involvement with 27
percent of projects having university faculty as contractors on the
project, 17 percent using universities themselves as subcontractors,
and 15 percent employing graduate students.
In its report accompanying reauthorization legislation, the Senate
Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee recently concluded that:

increases in the SBIR allocation will invest money in
research, contracting, internships, and other collaborative
activities done with universities, with the contracting and
patenting activities with SBIR companies being a sizable
source of revenue for universities as well. The university-
industry partnerships that SBIR creates are crucial in that
they provide an applied research and commercialization focus
that otherwise likely would not be present in university
research. More specifically, the partnerships are important
in exposing faculty and the next generation of scientists and
engineers to commercial research and development. SBIR
businesses provide graduate and undergraduate students with
hands-on experience and job opportunities that universities
would be unable to provide alone.

Our country not only faces immediate economic and employment
challenges, it faces major challenges in transportation, energy,
domestic security and water quality and safety. Targeted research and
development will be critical. Congress, with non-partisan expert
guidance, has a role to play in guiding our national research and
development priorities and, in this case, stimulating small business
innovation and job creation in specific areas of critical national
need. The National Academies of Science and other independent
government research organizations provide us with carefully researched
and considered recommendations on how we can address these priorities,
so my bill draws on their recommendations to develop innovative energy
technologies; enhance water quality and security; strengthen domestic
security; and address transportation priorities. This is not only a
good investment in short term job creation; it is an imperative
investment in our Nation's long term innovation prospects and economic
development.
The costs of my bill would be fully offset by cancellation of the
airborne laser program. CBO estimates that cancelling that program will
produce savings of over $2.6 billion.
______

By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 178. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 to authorize a connecting education and emerging professions
demonstration grant program; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as the 111th Congress begins, I am
reintroducing a number of different bills designed to fuel job creation
and spur economic development. My initiative, dubbed E4 because of its
focus on economy, employment, education, and energy, seeks to respond
to economic and job development needs both in my State of Wisconsin and
around the country. These challenging economic times call for a
comprehensive set of solutions including providing new job training
opportunities for workers, fostering innovation among small businesses,
protecting the existing family-supporting jobs in our nation, and
boosting educational opportunities for young Americans. Today I am
introducing the Connecting Education and Emerging Professions Act of
2009, which provides competitive grants to States and local school
districts to promote better collaboration between high schools and
local businesses and workforce development groups. This E4 education
initiative is designed to help prepare America's students for future
success in the workforce and post-secondary education as well as
enhance America's competitiveness in the global economy as we prepare
to enter the second decade of the twenty-first century.
Helping to ensure that all American students have access to a high-
quality education is critical to boosting America's competitiveness and
helping to ensure that our country is better equipped to respond to the
economic challenges currently before us. Investment in our young people
now will pay off in the future when these individuals are better
prepared to compete for the highly skilled jobs of tomorrow. If the
United States is to remain competitive on an international stage and
continue to lead the world in innovation and development, we need to
make certain that our young people are well prepared to meet current
and future economic challenges.
Improving educational opportunities in the United States is going to
require

[[Page S223]]

a comprehensive set of policy strategies and I look forward to working
with my colleagues in Congress this year as we get to work on a variety
of education issues including expanding access to education from pre-K
through college. We also face the monumental task of reauthorizing and
reforming the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, better
known as No Child Left Behind, NCLB. As we consider the ESEA
reauthorization, we should make substantial changes to the testing
mandates that were imposed through NCLB and provide support to states
that develop smarter accountability systems with enhanced assessments
that measure higher-order thinking skills among students. We also need
to look at ways to strengthen and reform our Nation's public secondary
schools as part of the ESEA reauthorization. The legislation I am
introducing today is designed to help support innovative changes that
are taking place in some of our Nation's high schools and help even
more States and local communities make improvements to their local high
schools.
My CEEP bill seeks to address a couple of interrelated issues related
to secondary education. The first issue is the alarmingly high dropout
rate in our nation's high schools. While numbers vary slightly, a
growing body of research indicates that the United States has a
graduation rate of approximately 70 percent and that about one-third of
our country's high school students will not graduate on time.
Graduation rates for minority and low-income students are even lower,
in many cases, alarmingly lower. In addition, many of our nation's
urban school districts report very high dropout rates, including the
Milwaukee Public School District. According to the Cities in Crisis
report released in 2008 by the Editorial Projects in Education Research
Center, the Milwaukee Public Schools has a graduation rate of 46.1
percent. Unfortunately, there are at least a dozen large urban
districts that have even lower graduation rates than Milwaukee.
One of our top education priorities as a Nation must be to address
the low graduation rates nationwide in urban, suburban, and rural
school districts. We must also work to close the huge opportunity gap
that is created by the large disparity in graduation rates between our
minority and non-minority students as well as between low-income and
more affluent students. Solving this problem will require a broad,
comprehensive solution involving the federal, state and local
governments. It is my hope that when Congress finally reauthorizes the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we pay particular attention to
the needs of our nation's high schools and our students.
While many factors contribute to high dropout rates, disengagement
from classroom instruction can contribute to a student's decision to
drop out. Some students feel that high school is not relevant to their
lives and do not see how completing high school will translate into
future career and academic success. In this increasingly competitive
twenty-first century where postsecondary education is now required for
many entry-level jobs, it is up to us to show our nation's students why
it is so important that they graduate from high school.
Another issue that this bill seeks to address is the growing sense
among employers and postsecondary institutions that our nation's high
school students who do graduate are unprepared for success either in
the workforce or in college. Employers in various economic sectors,
including technology, manufacturing, health care, construction, and
others, report difficulty in identifying qualified candidates for
skilled positions. Recent surveys also indicate that many employers are
dissatisfied with the overall preparation of secondary school
graduates. In order for companies in the United States to be
competitive in a global economy, we must have a highly skilled
workforce. Adequate preparation at the high school level can help
prepare students for entry into our rapidly changing global economy
where new emerging industries are cropping up in Wisconsin and around
the country.

To address these two interrelated issues, my bill would provide 5-
year competitive education grants to states and school districts to
foster collaboration and discussions between schools, businesses, and
others about the emerging industry workforce needs and how to prepare
our high school students to meet those needs, both academically and
practically. States and local school districts must use this money to
form partnerships with local or regional businesses, postsecondary
institutions, workforce development boards, labor organizations,
nonprofit organizations and others.
These partnerships will have the responsibility of surveying local,
regional, and statewide emerging industries and deciding what are the
academic and work-based skills that our high school students need in
order to be successful in these emerging industries. The partnerships
will then work together to develop new and engaging curriculums and
programs designed to teach the academic and work-based skills that are
necessary to succeed in these new emerging industries. Once the
partnership has designed a curriculum or program and received approval
from the Federal Department of Education, the partnership will work to
implement the program in qualifying schools.
During the implementation phase, the partnership will come together
to implement hands-on learning and work opportunities for students
including internships, apprenticeships, job shadowing, and other career
and technical education programs. These hands-on learning and work
opportunities will be based on the emerging industry pathways
curriculum or program that the eligible partnership has designed and
will offer students practical academic experiences and skill-building
lessons that they can use in the workplace or in postsecondary
education.
This legislation seeks to help schools, businesses, colleges, and the
students who would be served by this legislation talk with each other
to build new programs that would help boost student engagement in
learning and student attendance and graduation rates while also
preparing students for success in the workforce or in college after
they graduate. There are a number of successful local and state
programs around Wisconsin that this legislation would help support and
that served as valuable examples as I developed this legislation.
Wisconsin's Department of Public Instruction, Department of Workforce
Development, and various local school districts have all been working
to boost Wisconsin's career and technical education offerings and gear
these offerings towards emerging industries. My bill seeks to help
Wisconsin and other states build on these efforts and engage in
additional conversations with interested stakeholders to design new
curriculums and programs to prepare students for emerging industries.
I look forward to moving this legislation forward this year as the
new Congress begins to debate how best to boost educational
opportunities for all of our Nation's children. We have a significant
achievement gap and graduation gap in urban, rural, and suburban
schools throughout the country and it is imperative that we work
together to promote innovative ideas that will close these gaps. Some
of our Nation's schools are experiencing high dropout rates in part
because students aren't connecting with what they are being taught. At
the same time, we're seeing an emergence of new industries, like those
aiming to capitalize on alternative energies and energy efficiency,
that need employers with skills and training in their field. If we help
schools connect their students with businesses, workforce development
boards, and colleges that offer career and academic opportunities in
these new and exciting fields, we can help to lower the alarming
dropout rates while helping these emerging industries thrive.
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. 178

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 ``Connecting Education and
Emerging Professions Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:

[[Page S224]]

(1) The majority of secondary school students in the United
States receive some career-related instruction before
graduation, and about half of secondary school students have
a strong career-related component to their educational
programs.
(2) A gap still remains between what students are learning
in school and the knowledge required to succeed in the
current labor market.
(3) Employers in various economic sectors, including
technology, manufacturing, healthcare, construction, and
others, report difficulty in identifying qualified candidates
for skilled positions.
(4) A survey of more than 400 employers nationwide found
that nearly half were dissatisfied with the overall
preparation of secondary school graduates.
(5) Almost 40 percent of secondary school graduates report
feeling unprepared for the workplace or postsecondary
education.
(6) In order for companies in the United States to be
competitive in a global economy, the United States must have
a highly skilled workforce.
(7) Adequate preparation on the secondary school level can
help prepare students to enter high-demand fields in need of
skilled workers.
(8) Collaboration between businesses, industries, and
education leaders can help determine how best to prepare
students for workforce success.
(9) Career-related experiences during secondary education,
such as apprenticeships, are associated with positive labor
market outcomes for students.
(10) The United States has a secondary school graduation
rate of 70 percent, and approximately one-third of students
entering secondary school will not graduate on time.
(11) Minority and low socioeconomic status students have
significantly lower secondary school graduation rates.
(12) Disengagement from classroom instruction contributes
to student decisions to drop out of school.
(13) Studies indicate a link between career-oriented models
of secondary education, secondary school dropout rate
reduction, and higher earning potential for secondary school
graduates.
(14) Studies suggest that academic lessons taught in a work
context or an applied manner can improve some students'
ability to comprehend and retain information.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to--
(1) foster improved collaboration among secondary schools,
State, regional, and local businesses, institutions of higher
education, industry, workforce development organizations,
labor organizations, and other nonprofit community
organizations to identify emerging industry pathways, as well
as the academic skills necessary to improve student success
in the workforce or postsecondary education;
(2) address industry and postsecondary education needs for
a prepared and skilled workforce;
(3) improve the potential for economic and employment
growth in covered communities; and
(4) help address the dropout crisis in the United States by
involving students in a collaborative curriculum or program
development process related to emerging industry pathways to
improve student engagement and attendance in secondary
school.

SEC. 3. CONNECTING EDUCATION AND EMERGING PROFESSIONS
DEMONSTRATION GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) Authorization.--Part D of title V of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7241 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``Subpart 22--Connecting Education and Emerging Professions
Demonstration Grant Program

``SEC. 5621. DEFINITIONS.

``In this subpart:
``(1) Covered community.--The term `covered community'
means a town, city, community, region, or State that has--
``(A) experienced a significant percentage job loss in the
5 years prior to the date of enactment of this subpart or is
projected to experience a significant percentage job loss
within 5 years after the date of enactment of this subpart;
or
``(B) an unemployment rate that has increased in the 12
months prior to the date of enactment of this subpart.
``(2) Eligible partnership.--The term `eligible
partnership' means a partnership that includes--
``(A) a State educational agency, a consortium of local
educational agencies, or a local educational agency that
collaborates with--
``(i) a State, regional, or local business, including a
small business, that serves a covered community in which a
qualifying school is located; or
``(ii) a regional workforce investment board that serves a
covered community in which a qualifying school is located;
and
``(B) at least 1 of the following entities:
``(i) An institution of higher education that provides a 4-
year program of instruction.
``(ii) An accredited community college.
``(iii) An accredited career or technical school or
college.
``(iv) A tribal college or university.
``(v) A nonprofit community organization.
``(vi) A labor organization.
``(3) Emerging industry pathways.--The term `emerging
industry pathways' means industry careers that--
``(A) are estimated to increase in the number of job
opportunities in a covered community within the 5 to 7 years
after the date of enactment of this subpart;
``(B) require new academic skill sets because of new
technology or innovation in the field;
``(C) are important to the growth of the State economy,
regional economy, or local area's economy; and
``(D) may include--
``(i) green industries;
``(ii) healthcare industries;
``(iii) advanced manufacturing industries; and
``(iv) programs of study, as described in section
122(c)(1)(A) of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical
Education Act of 2006.
``(4) Qualifying school.--The term `qualifying school'
means a secondary school that--
``(A) serves students not less than 30 percent of whom are
eligible for the school lunch program under the Richard B.
Russell National School Lunch Act or meet an equivalent
indicator of poverty established by the Secretary;
``(B) has a graduation rate that is lower than the State
average; and
``(C) is located in a covered community.
``(5) School- and work-based curriculum or program.--The
term `school- and work-based curriculum or program' means a
curriculum or program that incorporates a combination of
school-based instruction and work-based learning
opportunities, including internships, work experience
programs, apprenticeships, service learning programs,
mentorship opportunities, job shadowing, and other career and
technical education programs, in an emerging industry
pathway.
``(6) Tribal college or university.--The term `tribal
college or university' means an educational institution that
is--
``(A) a tribal college or university, as defined in section
2(a) of the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities
Assistance Act of 1978; or
``(B) one of the 1994 Institutions, as defined in section
532 of the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of
1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note).

``SEC. 5622. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

``(a) In General.--From amounts appropriated under section
5626, the Secretary shall establish and carry out an emerging
professions and educational improvement demonstration
project, by awarding grants, on a competitive basis, to
eligible partnerships.
``(b) Program Periods.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall award grants under
this subpart for periods of not more than 5 years, of which
the eligible partnership shall use--
``(A) not more than 18 months for assessing emerging
industry pathways, assessing the academic skills needed for
success in such pathways, and designing a school- and work-
based curriculum or program to teach such academic skills
necessary for success in an emerging industry pathway;
``(B) not more than 48 months for implementing the new
emerging industry pathways school- and work-based curriculum
or program in qualifying schools; and
``(C) not more than 12 months to disseminate best practices
to other State educational agencies, local educational
agencies, or schools.
``(2) Overlap.--Each eligible partnership receiving a grant
under this subpart may carry out subparagraphs (A), (B), or
(C) concurrently.
``(c) Priority.--In awarding grants under this subpart, the
Secretary shall give priority to eligible partnerships that--
``(1) serve qualifying schools in which 50 percent or more
of the students are eligible for the school lunch program
under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act or
meet an equivalent indicator of poverty established by the
Secretary;
``(2) serve qualifying schools the majority of which have
secondary school dropout rates in the top 25 percent
statewide;
``(3) pledge to serve the students most at-risk of dropping
out of qualifying schools;
``(4) develop school- and work-based curricula or programs
serving green industries, health care industries, and
advanced manufacturing industries; or
``(5) have a demonstrated record of success in forming
collaborative partnerships with businesses, workforce
development boards, institutions of higher education, local
community and technical colleges, tribal colleges or
universities, labor organizations, and other nonprofit
community organizations.

``SEC. 5623. APPLICATIONS.

``An eligible partnership that desires to receive a grant
under this subpart shall submit to the Secretary an
application at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Secretary may require, including--
``(1) a description of the eligible partnership, including
the responsibilities of each partner and how each partner
will meet its responsibilities;
``(2) a description of the statewide, regional, or local
emerging industry pathways and labor market needs to be
filled;
``(3) a description of how members of the eligible
partnership will collaborate with each other and interested
community stakeholders to assess the emerging industry
pathways in the State, region, or local area;
``(4) a description of how the eligible partnership will
engage students from qualifying

[[Page S225]]

schools to be served in the design and implementation of the
school- and work-based curriculum or program;
``(5) a description of how the eligible partnership will
use the assessment of emerging industry pathways to establish
a school- and work-based curriculum or program to teach
academic and industry skills needed for success in such
emerging industries and how these skills will be aligned with
existing challenging State academic content standards;
``(6) a description of how teachers, parents or guardians,
and school guidance counselors will be consulted by the
eligible partnership in the development of the school- and
work-based curriculum or program developed under this
subpart;
``(7) a description of how the eligible partnership will
ensure that teachers and instructors have the necessary
training and preparation to teach the school- and work-based
curriculum or program developed under this subpart;
``(8) a description of how the school- and work-based
curriculum or program developed under this subpart will
improve the academic achievement, student attendance, and
secondary school completion of at-risk students and such
students' readiness to enter into a career in an emerging
industry or pursue postsecondary education;
``(9) a description of how the eligible partnership will
design a school- and work-based curriculum or program that
meets the unique academic and career development needs of
students to be served by the curriculum or program;
``(10) a description of how the school- and work-based
curriculum or program will support statewide, regional, or
local emerging industries;
``(11) a description of how the eligible partnership will
measure and report improvement in academic and student
engagement outcomes among students who participate in the
school- and work-based curriculum or program developed under
this subpart;
``(12) a description of how the eligible partnership will
seek to leverage other sources of Federal, State, and local
funding to support the development and implementation of the
school- and work-based curriculum or program;
``(13) a description of how the eligible partnership will
work to create, use, and evaluate individual learning plans
and career portfolios for students served under this subpart;
``(14) a description of how the eligible partnership will
coordinate such curriculum or program with programs funded
under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act
of 2006; and
``(15) a description of how the eligible partnership plans
to sustain and expand such school- and work-based curriculum
or program after the Federal grant period ends.

``SEC. 5624. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION.

``(a) Selection.--In awarding grants under this subpart,
the Secretary shall--
``(1) consider the information submitted by the eligible
partnerships under section 5623;
``(2) prioritize applications in accordance with section
5622(c); and
``(3) select eligible partnerships that submit applications
in compliance with section 5623.
``(b) Award Amounts.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to subsection (c), the Secretary
shall award each grant under this subpart in an amount of not
more than $5,000,000.
``(2) Use of funds.--An eligible partnership that receives
a grant under this subpart shall use--
``(A) not more than 35 percent of the grant funds for
designing the emerging industry pathways school- and work-
based curriculum or program; and
``(B) not less than 65 percent of the grant funds for
implementing the emerging industry pathways school- and work-
based curriculum or program in qualifying schools.
``(c) Funding To Implement Curricula or Programs.--The
Secretary may not award grant funds under subsection
(b)(2)(B) to implement the emerging industry pathways school-
and work-based curriculum or program until the Secretary
certifies that the eligible partnership is in compliance with
the following:
``(1) The eligible partnership has engaged in a
collaborative process involving educators and school
administrators, including curriculum experts, as well as
representatives from local businesses and industry to assess
emerging industry demands and the academic knowledge and
skills needed to meet those demands.
``(2) The school- and work-based curriculum or program
developed by the eligible partnership is aligned with
challenging State academic content standards.
``(3) The eligible partnership has consulted with and
involved students in qualifying schools in the collaboration
process and design of the school- and work-based curriculum
or program.
``(4) The eligible partnership has received a commitment
from at least 1 qualifying school agreeing to implement the
school- and work-based curriculum or program in the
qualifying school.
``(5) The school- and work-based curriculum or program will
help prepare students for both direct entry into a career in
emerging industries and success in postsecondary education.
``(6) The eligible partnership has established a plan to
promote the school- and work-based curriculum or program
among qualifying schools, businesses, parental groups, and
community organizations.
``(d) Eligible Uses of Funds.--
``(1) Planning phase.--An eligible partnership that
receives a grant under this subpart shall use the grant funds
in the designing phase for the following:
``(A) Establishing collaborative working groups consisting
of educators, school administrators, representatives of local
or regional businesses, postsecondary education
representatives, representatives from labor organizations,
and representatives from nonprofit organizations.
``(B) Identifying emerging industry pathways at the State,
regional, or local level.
``(C) Identifying the academic and skill gaps that need to
be addressed to promote success in the emerging industry
pathways identified in subparagraph (B).
``(D) Developing a school- and work-based curriculum or
program to teach and integrate the academic and work-based
skills, including soft skills, that are needed for success in
emerging industry pathways and postsecondary education.
``(E) Creating a comprehensive set of academic and industry
skills to be taught across multiple emerging industry
pathways.
``(F) Aligning the school- and work-based curriculum or
program with challenging State academic content standards.
``(G) Establishing professional development opportunities
for educators, business partners, school counselors, and
others who will be implementing the school- and work-based
curriculum or program.
``(H) Collaborating with multistate regions to develop and
identify a school- and work-based curriculum or program that
addresses regional emerging industry pathways.
``(2) Implementing phase.--An eligible partnership that
receives a grant under this subpart shall use the grant funds
in the implementing phase for the following:
``(A) Integrating the emerging industry pathways school-
and work-based curriculum or program into classroom- or work-
based instruction.
``(B) Providing professional development opportunities
designed around the school- and work-based curriculum or
program for educators, business partners, and others.
``(C) Identifying and creating school- and work-based
learning curricula or programs for students in such emerging
industry pathways.
``(D) Promoting the school- and work-based curriculum or
program among school guidance counselors.
``(E) Working with pupil services staff to develop
opportunities for career exploration among emerging industry
pathways business partners.
``(F) Conducting ongoing evaluations of the school- and
work-based curriculum or program, including assessing whether
participating students report increased engagement in
learning, increased school attendance, and improved success
upon entry into the workforce or postsecondary education.
``(G) Purchasing resources, including textbooks, reference
materials, assessments, labs, computers, and software, for
use in the school- and work-based curriculum or program.
``(3) Dissemination phase.--An eligible partnership that
receives a grant under this subpart shall use the grant funds
in the dissemination phase for the following:
``(A) Evaluating, cataloging, and disseminating best
practices from the school- and work-based curriculum or
program.
``(B) Disseminating the school- and work-based curriculum
or program to--
``(i) the National Research Center for Career and Technical
Education;
``(ii) State, regional, and local professional education
organizations; and
``(iii) institutions of higher education.
``(e) Matching Contributions.--An eligible partnership that
receives a grant under this subpart shall provide, from non-
Federal sources, matching funds, which may be provided in
cash or in-kind, to carry out the activities supported by the
grant, in an amount equal to--
``(1) for the first year of the grant, 5 percent of the
amount of the grant for such year;
``(2) for the second year of the grant, 10 percent of the
amount of the grant for such year;
``(3) for the third year of the grant, 15 percent of the
amount of the grant for such year;
``(4) for the fourth year of the grant, 20 percent of the
amount of the grant for such year; and
``(5) for the fifth year of the grant, 25 percent of the
amount of the grant for such year.
``(f) Supplement, Not Supplant.--Grant funds awarded under
this subpart shall be used to supplement and not supplant
other Federal, State, and local funds available to implement
secondary school education programs or career and technical
education programs.

``SEC. 5625. EVALUATION AND REPORTS.

``(a) Annual Reports.--An eligible partnership that
receives a grant under this subpart shall submit an annual
report to the Secretary during the grant period detailing how
the eligible partnership is using the grant funds under this
subpart, including--
``(1) how the State educational agency or local educational
agency that is a member of the eligible partnership
collaborated with local businesses, workforce boards,
institutions of higher education, and community

[[Page S226]]

organizations to assess emerging industry pathways;
``(2) how the eligible partnership has consulted with and
involved students in qualifying schools in the design and
implementation of the emerging industry pathways school- and
work-based curriculum or program;
``(3) the effectiveness of the school- and work-based
curriculum or program with respect to improving--
``(A) student engagement;
``(B) attendance;
``(C) secondary school graduation rates; and
``(D) preparation for and placement in a career in an
emerging industry or in postsecondary education;
``(4) how the eligible partnership has improved its
capacity to respond to new workforce development priorities
and create educational opportunities that address such new
workforce development priorities; and
``(5) any other information the Secretary may reasonably
require.
``(b) Final Reports.--
``(1) In general.--An eligible partnership that receives a
grant under this subpart shall, at the end of the grant
period, collect and prepare a report on the following
information:
``(A) The number and percentage of students served by the
eligible partnership who--
``(i) graduated from secondary school with a regular
secondary school diploma in the standard number of years;
``(ii) entered into a job in an emerging industry; and
``(iii) enrolled in a postsecondary institution.
``(B) The emerging industry pathways school- and work-based
curriculum or program and the--
``(i) successes of such curriculum or program, including
placement rates of students in work or postsecondary
education and trends in secondary school graduation rates in
qualifying schools utilizing the school- and work-based
curriculum or program;
``(ii) areas of improvement for the school- and work-based
curriculum or program;
``(iii) lessons learned from the implementation of the
school- and work-based curriculum or program in secondary
schools; and
``(iv) plans to replicate the school- and work-based
curriculum or program in other schools or examples of
successful replication of the curriculum or program.
``(2) Submission of reports.--A report prepared under
paragraph (1) shall be submitted to the Secretary and the
National Research Center for Career and Technical Education.
``(c) Federal Evaluation and Report.--Not later than 6
years after the date of enactment of this subpart, the
Secretary shall--
``(1) develop and execute a plan for evaluating the
emerging industry pathways school- and work-based curricula
or programs assisted under this subpart; and
``(2) submit a report to Congress--
``(A) detailing aggregate data on--
``(i) the categories of activities for which eligible
partnerships used grant funds under this subpart;
``(ii) the impact of the grants on--

``(I) student engagement, attendance, and completion of
secondary school; and
``(II) the postsecondary placement of students in high-
quality emerging industry careers or postsecondary education;
and

``(iii) promising strategies for improving student
engagement, attendance, and completion of secondary school
through engaging curricula or programs; and
``(B) that includes any recommendations for improvements
that can be made to the grant program under this subpart.

``SEC. 5626. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``(a) In General.--From the amounts appropriated to and
available for Program Administration within the Departmental
Management account in the Department of Education for each of
fiscal years 2010 through 2013, there are authorized to be
appropriated $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010
through 2013, respectively, to carry out this subpart.
``(b) Set Aside for Evaluation.--Of the amounts
appropriated under subsection (a) for a fiscal year, 2
percent shall be set aside for such fiscal year for the
Federal evaluation required under section 5625(c).''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents in section 2
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 5618
the following:

``subpart 22--connecting education and emerging professions
demonstration grant program

``Sec. 5621. Definitions.
``Sec. 5622. Program authorized.
``Sec. 5623. Applications.
``Sec. 5624. Program administration.
``Sec. 5625. Evaluation and reports.
``Sec. 5626. Authorization of appropriations.''.
______

By Ms. STABENOW (for herself and Ms. Snowe).
S. 179. A bill to improve quality in health care by providing
incentives for adoption of modern information technology, to the
Committee on Finance.
Ms. STABENOW. I am very pleased to introduce the Health Information
Technology Act with my friend and colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe.
As co-chairs of the Senate Health Care Quality Improvement and
Information Technology Caucus, we have seen first-hand the
transformative power information technology has on the delivery of
health care.
Our legislation is a substantial down-payment in building up our
Nation's health information network and an important step in reforming
health care. In doing so, we will reduce costs for our businesses,
improve the quality of care for patients, and ensure health providers
have access to the most accurate information. And I am very excited
that President-elect Obama identified health IT as an important part of
investing in our Nation's economy.
The result of using 19th century technology in a 21st century health
care system is higher costs, increased errors, and decreased quality of
care. Too often, care is duplicated or the best and most appropriate
care isn't given. Our health care professionals can't possibly provide
the best care if they don't have complete and accurate information
about the patient sitting in front of them.
Many studies have found that as much as $300 billion is spent each
year on health care that does not improve patient outcomes on treatment
that is unnecessary, inappropriate, inefficient, or ineffective. For
example, in last year's series of health reform hearings in the Senate
Finance Committee, we heard testimony from Elizabeth McGlynn of the
RAND Corporation that we only receive 55 percent of recommended
preventive care services, 54 percent of recommended care for acute
health problems, and 56 percent of the care that doctors agree is
necessary for people with chronic conditions when we seek medical
treatment.
It's long past time that we fully utilize technology to make health
care accessible and affordable for every family and business. However,
most of our Nation's health care providers don't have access to capital
in order to purchase information technology and service updates. Too
many providers, especially our safety-net providers, are having a hard
enough time just keeping up with their daily costs, much less to invest
in something new.
A March 2001 Institute of Medicine study concluded that in order to
improve quality, there must be a national commitment to building an
information infrastructure. An October 2003 Government Accountability
Office report found that the benefits of an electronic healthcare
information system included improved quality of care, reduced costs
associated with medication errors, more accurate and complete medical
documentation, more accurate capture of codes and charges, and improved
communication among providers enabling them to respond more quickly to
patients' needs.
By providing the most appropriate care at the most appropriate time
in a safe, secure way, we can reap huge savings. A January 2005 Report
by the Center for Information Technology Leadership found that moving
to standardized health information exchange and interoperability would
save nearly $80 billion annually in the United States.
The benefits of adoption and use of health care information
technologies, systems and services will be widespread: employers will
realize cost savings, clinicians will gain new electronic support tools
and patient information to help guide medical decisions, and patients
will benefit from a more efficient health care system and from a safer
health care system with fewer unnecessary treatments and more attention
to preventive care.
We know that adoption of health information technology can
play a critical role in improving patient outcomes and at the
same time greatly reduce costs. But it can't happen without
the federal government playing a role. The members of the
Health Information Technology Leadership Panel concurred that
without federal leadership, neither their individual
companies nor the industrial sector as a whole can achieve
the breadth of HIT adoption that would be required to realize
the needed transformation of health care.
Our country must have a national commitment to building an
information infrastructure, and the Federal Government needs to step up
to the plate and provide much-needed funds to get the ball rolling.
Without health IT, we are not going to be able to accomplish other
reforms necessary to improve our health care system. That is

[[Page S227]]

why I am fighting for funding similar to the legislation we are
introducing today, will be included in the economic recovery act we
will soon be debated.
The sooner we get them into our hospitals, physician offices, nursing
homes, community health centers, community mental health centers, and
other health care providers, the sooner our patients, providers, and
pocketbooks will see the rewards.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I join my colleague, Senator Stabenow
of Michigan, to introduce the Health Information Technology Act of 2009
to improve the quality of health care through the implementation of
information technology, IT, in hospitals, health centers and physician
practices throughout the country. Our legislation will help us address
two critical issues.
The first is the serious patient safety problem facing our Nation.
Indeed, if most Americans were told today that 98,000 lives were lost
needlessly last year--and a cure was available--they would undoubtedly
call for action. Yet the Institute of Medicine, IOM, has reported that
medical errors inflict that terrible toll every year, even though the
technology is at our disposal to dramatically reduce those deaths.
A second major problem is the escalating cost of health care. Health
spending now comprises over 16 percent of GNP--$2.2 trillion last
year--and the price of a health plan has grown so high that 70 million
Americans today are either underinsured or lack any coverage
whatsoever. That group expands as unemployment rates increase and
individuals and families lose health insurance tied to employment. A
recent Urban Institute study found that for each 1 percentage point
increase in unemployment 1 million Americans are added to the rolls of
the uninsured. However, simply expanding government subsidies or
entitlements alone is not the answer, because on our current
trajectory, escalating costs will erode our ability to maintain such
supports. It is clear that some fundamental changes must be made in
health care to combat rising health care costs.
Bold changes and innovations are necessary to address both medical
errors and escalating costs. One of those changes must be the
application of modern data technology. Most of us have been told at one
time or another, ``we're waiting to get the test results mailed'' or
``we're still waiting for your chart.'' Consider the savings we realize
when a physician can locate information efficiently so that tests don't
have to be repeated and data isn't delayed. A patient obtains faster,
higher quality care when multiple practitioners can review diagnostic
test results right at their desktops. The fact is the health care
industry is one of the last sectors where information flows so slowly.
Indeed, it is often easier to track the service history on one's
automobile than to see your own health history. In an age where
millions of Americans share family pictures over the Internet in
seconds, isn't it long past time that a physician should be able to
retrieve an x-ray just as easily?
Today, the technological tools are at hand to dramatically reduce
medical errors and save lives. Many of us have heard about how drug
interactions can be avoided by software systems which check a patient's
prescriptions for hazards, and there are so many other applications
which can also improve health. For example, by reviewing and analyzing
information, a health provider can help a patient better manage chronic
diseases such as diabetes and heart disease to reduce avoidable adverse
outcomes. The unfortunate reality is that the cost of new systems and a
lack of standards have prevented us from reaping the benefits of new
technologies.
While the current economic crisis has surely put a focus on
addressing the inefficiencies and high costs of health care, I have
long shared a determination to modernize health information with my
colleagues. In 2003, I joined with Senator Bob Graham to introduce the
``Medication Errors Reduction Act of 2003'' to make grants of up to
$750,000 available to hospitals and nursing facilities to aid in
implementation of health IT infrastructure. In 2005, Senator Stabenow
and I offered our bill to create a $4 billion competitive grant program
and tax incentives to enable hospitals, skilled nursing facilities,
community health centers and physicians to invest in health IT.
The President-elect shares our recognition of the critical role which
information technology must play in transforming health care. In his
campaign, he acknowledged the critical need to make technology
implementation a priority.
A lack of standards to ensure interoperability has been a factor in
slowing IT adoption by many health care providers. One must know that a
system purchased will be compatible with others, and that--no matter
what may happen in the future to a vendor--the investment one makes in
building an electronic medical record won't be wasted. In other words,
your system must be able to communicate with other systems, and your
investment in building electronic medical records must be preserved.
When a patient moves, their electronic ``chart'' should be able to move
right along with them to prevent disruption in the continuity of their
care--in other words ``we must have interoperability.''
Yet standards alone are not sufficient, as there are fiscal hurdles
to implementing health IT. Today, many providers are struggling to
adopt new technology, and for those who serve beneficiaries of
Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP, it can be exceedingly difficult. Our
physicians, for example, have seen recent Medicare payment updates
which have not even kept pace with inflation--even as we expect them to
make a major investment in health IT.
We must also recognize there is a misalignment of fiscal incentives
for health IT. The benefits to patients are evident--in fewer delays,
in better outcomes, in lives saved. Modern information technology
reduces costs as well, but primarily to those who pay for services--not
for the healthcare providers who must bear the burden of
implementation. Indeed, it has been estimated that 89 percent of cost
savings accrue to those who pay for services. It should be obvious then
that the federal government would invest in health IT to both improve
health outcomes and to reduce its expenditures on Medicare, Medicaid
and SCHIP.
That is precisely the type of investment the Health Information
Technology Act of 2009 would achieve. Because as we look to the many
studies and reports on health IT, it is clear that annual cost savings
can actually exceed the price of implementation. With that kind of
return, it is indisputable that the federal government must employ
health IT to see not only the savings in lives, but also better
management of our health care spending.
Our legislation spurs adoption by providing grants to physicians,
hospitals, long term care facilities and both federally-qualified
health centers and community mental health centers. These grants are
targeted to help provide the health IT resources providers need to
serve our federal beneficiaries. In fact, the size of an allowable
grant for each provider is keyed to the proportion of the patient care
which they deliver to federal beneficiaries. This will help providers
deliver better care to those on Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP while we
also see costs reduced in those programs. That is simple common sense.
The legislation supports reasonable expenditures for a variety of
costs required to implement health care information technology. These
include such components as computer hardware and software in
combination with installation and training. In addition for a system to
be suitable for support under this legislation, we require that it must
meet the HHS Secretary's interoperability standards.
Our new legislation even provides an alternative to those for-profit
providers who do not wish to apply for a grant. Under this bill, such
providers will be able to expense the cost of a qualified system. We
will thus assure that every type of provider has a meaningful
opportunity to invest in moving their health care practice into the new
millennium. With the development of a 21st century health technology
system, we will ensure that providers have the appropriate tools to
effectively provide the best quality health care at reasonable cost.
As the current Congress struggles with matters related to the ailing
economy, many Americans are finding it exceedingly difficult to access
health care which they find to be both expensive and inefficient. While
it is clear

[[Page S228]]

that health IT alone will not reduce all excessive costs or address
every inefficiency, one must understand that the only way to achieve
either goal is to have access to the type of coordinated information
that a fully integrated health care system would provide. In fact, the
information we will obtain through health IT is essential to achieve
such goals as improving quality and reforming provider payment. This is
the foundation for our work on health reform.
When the Medicare and Medicaid programs began, we could have only
dreamed about computerized clinical information systems. Today, we have
this technology at our disposal, and I strongly believe that we cannot
afford to delay implementation. In fact, as we face challenges in the
financing of these vital federal programs, this is exactly the sort of
initiative which will enable us to achieve the fundamental improvements
to make our health entitlements more fiscally secure.
I hope my colleagues will join us in support of this legislation so
we may soon achieve the goals of improving patient safety and reducing
our escalating health care costs.
______

By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Leahy,
Mr. Reid, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Murray, Mr.
Reed, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Brown, Mr. Byrd, Mr.
Inouye, Mr. Levin, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Kohl, Mr.
Lieberman, Mr. Akaka, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Dorgan, Mrs. Boxer,
Mr. Feingold, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Landrieu,
Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Carper, Ms. Stabenow, Ms.
Cantwell, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Salazar,
Mr. Menendez, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Webb, Mr. Casey, Ms. Klobuchar,
Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Tester, Mr. Udall of
Colorado, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mr. Warner, Mrs. Shaheen,
Mr. Merkley, Mrs. Hagan, Mr. Begich, and Mr. Pryor):
S. 181. A bill to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and to modify the
operation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to clarify that a discriminatory
compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such
Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the
discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other
purposes; read the first time.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I'm proud to join Senator Mikulski in
introducing this legislation. Equal pay for equal work is a fundamental
civil right. Over the past 4 decades, America has made enormous
progress toward ensuring that all its people have an equal chance to
enjoy the benefits of this great Nation. Bipartisan civil rights bills
have been enacted to expand and strengthen the law to ensure fair pay
for all workers. Despite these advances, civil rights is still
America's unfinished business. It is therefore fitting that we open the
111th Congress with introduction of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
This bill will restore the basic right of all workers, regardless of
their race, sex, religion, national origin, age, or disability, to be
paid fairly, free from discrimination. It will restore workers' rights
to challenge ongoing discrimination and hold unscrupulous employers
accountable.
This legislation is needed because the Supreme Court turned back our
Nation's progress on equal pay with its Ledbetter decision, which
undermined a core protection of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and overturned decades of precedent that had established a fair,
workable rule for challenging pay discrimination claims.
This needed bill will restore the long-standing rule that each
discriminatory paycheck is a separate wrong that may be challenged by
workers within the required period after receiving the check. In the
Ledbetter case, a jury had found that Lilly Ledbetter was paid less
than her male coworkers because she was a woman. The jury awarded back
pay to Ms. Ledbetter, but the Supreme Court reversed that award,
holding that she had waited too long and should have filed her lawsuit
within a short time after Goodyear first began discriminating against
her. Never mind that the company discriminated against her for decades,
and that the discrimination continued with each new paycheck she
received.
Far too often, workers like Lilly Ledbetter put in a fair day's work,
but go home with less than a fair day's pay. Women, African-American,
and Latino workers all earn a fraction of what white male workers make.
Many qualified older workers and workers with disabilities also are
paid less than their coworkers for reasons unrelated to their
performance on the job.
It's more important than ever that we attack the problem of pay
discrimination and correct the injustice caused by the Ledbetter
decision. In the current economic crisis, millions of American workers
are struggling to make ends meet. Pay discrimination makes that
struggle harder, and workers can't afford to lose more economic ground.
To protect these workers, we must move quickly to pass the Lilly
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
I urge my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, to do so, and
to send a strong signal that this new Congress is dedicated to standing
up for fairness and equality in the workplace. The Lilly Ledbetters of
our Nation deserve no less.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Mikulski,
Kennedy, Snowe and others in introducing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay
Restoration Act of 2009. This legislation is long overdue and I am
pleased that the majority leader will try again to move this
legislation in the opening days of this new Congress. The Supreme
Court's divided decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire struck a severe
blow to the rights of working families across our country. More than 40
years ago, Congress acted to protect women and others against
discrimination in the workplace. In the 21st century, equal pay for
equal work should be a given in this country. Unfortunately, the
reality is still far from this basic principle. American women still
earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by a male counterpart. That
decreases to 62 cents on the dollar for African-American women and just
53 cents on the dollar for Hispanic-American women.
For nearly 20 years, Ms. Ledbetter was a manager at a Goodyear
factory in Gadsden, Alabama. After decades of service, she learned
through an anonymous note that her employer had been discriminating
against her for years. She was the only woman among 16 employees at her
management level, yet Ms. Ledbetter was paid between 15 and 40 percent
less than all of her male colleagues, including several who had
significantly less seniority. After filing a complaint with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, a Federal jury found that Ms.
Ledbetter was owed almost $225,000 in back pay. However, 5 members of
the Supreme Court overturned her jury verdict because she had filed her
lawsuit more than 180 days after her employer's original discriminatory
act.
I was honored to invite Ms. Ledbetter to testify at a Judiciary
Committee hearing I chaired in September to examine how the Supreme
Court's recent decisions have affected the lives of ordinary Americans.
Ms. Ledbetter's case is but one example of how the Supreme Court has
dramatically misinterpreted the intent of Congress and offered a
liability shield to corporate wrong-doers.
This decision is yet another example of the Supreme Court's
increasing willingness to overturn juries who hear the factual evidence
and decide cases. A recent study revealed that in employment
discrimination cases, Federal courts of appeal are 5 times more likely
to overturn an employee's favorable trial verdict against an employer
than they are to overturn a verdict in favor of the corporation. That
is a startling disparity for those of us who expect employees and
employers to be treated fairly by the judges sitting on our appellate
courts.
In the 110th Congress, the House passed the bipartisan Lilly
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act by a vote of 225-199. In the Senate, despite the
support of 57 Senators who urged its consideration, the majority of
Republican Senators objected to even proceeding to consideration of
this bipartisan measure. One

[[Page S229]]

Republican Senator who supported the filibuster introduced an
alternative bill, claiming to offer a solution for victims of pay
discrimination. In reality, that partisan alternative proposal would
fail to correct the injustice created by the Ledbetter decision. At the
Judiciary Committee hearing in September, Ms. Ledbetter confirmed that
the alternative bill would not have remedied her case, but instead
would have imposed additional burdens and increased the costs of her
litigation.
Congress passed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to protect
employees against discrimination with respect to compensation because
of an individual's race, color, religion, sex or national origin--
however the Supreme Court's cramped interpretation of this important
law contradicts Congress's intent to ensure equal pay for equal work.
This Supreme Court decision goes against both the spirit and clear
intent of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and sends the message to
employers that wage discrimination cannot be punished as long as it is
kept under wraps. At a time when one-third of private sector employers
have rules prohibiting employees from discussing their pay with each
other, the Court's decision ignores a reality of the workplace--pay
discrimination is often intentionally concealed by employers.
Equal pay is not just a women's issue, it is a family issue. With a
record 70.2 million women in the workforce, wage discrimination
continues to hurt the majority of American families. As a working
mother, the discrimination inflicted on Ms. Ledbetter affected her
entire family and continues to affect her retirement benefits. As the
economy continues to worsen, many Americans are struggling to put food
on the table and money in their retirement funds. It is regrettable
that recent decisions handed down by the Supreme Court and Federal
appellate courts have contributed to the financial struggles of so many
women and their families. In the next weeks, I hope we can act to
overturn the wrongly-decided Ledbetter decision to prevent the
devastating consequences of pay discrimination.
______

By Mr. UDALL of Colorado (for himself and Mr. Salazar:
S. 187. A bill to provide for the construction of the Arkansas Valley
Conduit in the State of Colorado; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, today I am introducing four
bills, S. 187, S. 188, S. 189, S. 190, that will preserve and protect
majestic public landscapes in Colorado and help provide needed water
supplies to communities and farmers on Colorado's productive Eastern
Plains. These bills were introduced in the last session of Congress,
where they each had hearings and one passed the U.S. House of
Representatives. I hope that we can work together to move these bills
in this Congress and see them signed into law.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of all four bills be included
in the Record and be printed alongside these remarks.
The first bill is the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act of 2009. This bill
will help protect the water supply for the Arkansas River Valley's
communities and its productive agricultural lands by advancing the
construction of the long-planned Arkansas Valley Conduit. The bill will
restructure the cost-share provisions of the project and is similar to
legislation introduced in the last Congress by Senators Wayne Allard
and Ken Salazar and introduced yesterday in the U.S. House of
Representatives by Reps. John Salazar and Betsy Markey.
The Arkansas Valley Conduit, a proposed 130-mile water delivery
system from the Pueblo Dam to communities throughout the Arkansas River
Valley, was originally authorized in 1962 as part of the Fryingpan-
Arkansas, Fry-Ark, project. Unfortunately, the authorization did not
include a Federal-local cost-share provision necessary to cover the
estimated $300 million in construction costs, and local communities--
especially those in southern Colorado--do not have the resources to
shoulder all of the costs. The project has thus remained unfinished for
over 4 years.
The bill will provide for a 65-35 Federal-local cost-share for
completion of the project, with revenues from so-called ``excess-
capacity'' contracts for water storage in other Fry-Ark project
facilities being used to fund the majority of the local contribution.
This approach is the result of close collaboration between community
stakeholders and the Colorado congressional delegation and will ensure
communities in the Arkansas River Valley can finance their portion of
the project without incurring unbearable financial burdens.
Moreover, the bill will allow the Bureau of Reclamation to move
forward with the construction of the Conduit. The depressed economic
status of southeastern Colorado made it a difficult financial
undertaking for the region, a challenge that continues today. This bill
will help see this facility become a reality and thereby help the
farming and ranching communities in the valley continue to produce
needed food and fiber for the state and Nation.
The second bill I am introducing today is the Colorado Northern Front
Range Mountain Backdrop Protection Study Act. I introduced similar
bills in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 107th, 108th, 109th
and 110th Congresses. In previous Congresses, the bill passed the House
and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee but did not
receive final action.
The bill is intended to help local communities identify ways to
protect the Front Range Mountain Backdrop in the northern Denver-metro
area and the region just west of Rocky Flats. The Arapaho-Roosevelt
National Forest includes much of the land in this backdrop area, but
there are other lands involved as well.
Rising dramatically from the Great Plains, the Front Range of the
Rocky Mountains provides a scenic mountain backdrop to many communities
in the Denver metropolitan area and elsewhere in Colorado. The portion
of the range within and adjacent to the Arapaho-Roosevelt National
Forest also includes a diverse array of wildlife habitats and provides
many opportunities for outdoor recreation. The open-space character of
this mountain backdrop is an important aesthetic and economic asset for
adjoining communities, making them attractive locations for homes and
businesses. But rapid population growth in the northern Front Range
area of Colorado is increasing recreational use of the Arapaho-
Roosevelt National Forest and is also increasing pressure for
development of other lands within and adjacent to that national forest.
We can see the effects of rapid population growth throughout Colorado
and especially along the Front Range. Homes and shopping centers are
sprawling through valleys and along highways that feed into the Front
Range. This development then spreads out along the ridges and
mountaintops that make up the backdrop. We are in danger of losing to
development many of the qualities that have helped attract new
residents to Colorado. So, it is important to better understand what
steps might be taken to avoid or lessen that risk--and this bill is
designed to help us do just that.
Already, local governments and other entities have provided important
protection for portions of this mountain backdrop, especially in the
northern Denver-metro area. However, some portions of the backdrop in
this part of Colorado remain unprotected and are at risk of losing
their open-space qualities. This bill acknowledges the good work of the
local communities in preserving open space along the backdrop and aims
to assist further efforts along the same lines.
The bill directs the U.S. Forest Service to study the ownership
patterns of the lands comprising the Front Range mountain backdrop,
identify areas that are at risk, and recommend to Congress how these
lands might be protected and how the Federal Government could help
local communities and residents to achieve that goal. Importantly, I
note that the bill does not interfere with the power of local
authorities regarding land use planning or infringe on private property
rights. Instead, it will bring the land protection experience of the
Forest Service

[[Page S230]]

to the table to assist local efforts to protect areas that comprise the
backdrop. The bill envisions that to the extent the Forest Service
should be involved with Federal lands, it will work in collaboration
with local communities, the state and private parties.

I strongly believe it is in the national interest for the Federal
Government to assist local communities to identify ways to protect the
mounatin backdrop in this part of Colorado. The backdrop beckoned
settlers westward and presented an imposing impediment to their forward
progress that suggested similar challenges ahead. This first exposure
to the harshness and humbling majesty of the Rocky Mountain West helped
define a region. The pioneers' independent spirit and respect for
nature still lives with us to this day. We need to work to preserve it
by protecting the mountain backdrop as a cultural and natural heritage
for ourselves and generations to come.
The third bill I am introducing today--the National Trails System
Willing Seller Act--will allow people who want to sell land for
inclusion in certain units of the National Trails System to do so.
Current law prohibits people who own land associated with several units
of the trail system from selling those lands to the Federal Government
for inclusion in those units. This bill will allow such sales to
happen.
This legislation is identical to bills introduced in previous
Congresses by my former Republican colleagues from Colorado,
Representatives Beauprez and McInnis. The Trail System units covered by
the bill are the Oregon National Historic Trail, the Mormon Pioneer
National Historic Trail, the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail,
the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail, the Iditarod National
Historic Trail, the North County National Scenic Trail, the Ice Age
National Scenic Trail, the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail, and
the Nez Perce National Historic Trail.
Our national trails are a national treasure, and we should allow
people who own land along these trails to sell that land to the Federal
Government to be part of our public lands legacy. But it is important
to make clear that these land sales are from willing sellers, which is
what this bill will do. This bill makes a small but important
adjustment to current law, and I think it deserves the support of all
Members of the Senate.
The final bill I am introducing today is the Rocky Mountain National
Park Wilderness and Indian Peaks Wilderness Expansion Act, which will
designate nearly 250,000 acres of Rocky Mountain National Park as
wilderness. I introduced this bill in the 110th Congress as a member of
the House of Representatives. It was cosponsored in the Senate by my
colleague Senator Ken Salazar, and eventually by the Colorado
Congressional delegation. Over a period of months, we worked together
to develop this bipartisan legislation that will provide important
protection and management direction for some truly remarkable country.
This is a public lands policy goal that goes back to the 1960s, and is
long overdue.
This bill is consistent with the Colorado Congressional delegation's
efforts in the last Congress to strike a balance in protecting the park
and the water users who rely on the Grand River Ditch. This carefully
negotiated language met the needs of those users, but questions have
been raised about the particular way that liability and water use
issues were addressed in the delegation bill. Specifically, there have
been questions about how these provisions work in the context of the
Park Resources Protection Act. While I am confident that my bill
addresses these liability concerns, I appreciate the recent efforts by
Senator Salazar to offer a slightly different approach that provides a
path to a widely-shared goal that has broad support in Colorado.
The wilderness designation in this bill for the park will cover some
94 percent of the park, including Longs Peaks and other major mountains
along the Great Continental Divide, glacial cirques and snow fields,
broad expanses of alpine tundra and wet meadows, old-growth forests,
and hundreds of lakes and streams, all untrammeled by human structures
or passage. Indeed, examples of all the natural ecosystems that make up
the splendor of the park are included in the wilderness that will be
designated by this bill. At the same time, the wilderness boundaries
have been drawn so as to allow continued access for use of existing
roadways, buildings and developed areas, privately owned land, and
areas where additional facilities and roadwork will improve park
management and visitor services. In addition, specific provisions are
included to ensure that there will be no adverse effects on continued
use of existing water facilities.
The lands designated as wilderness will become part of the National
Wilderness Preservation System that was established by the Wilderness
Act and will be managed in accordance with that Act and the provisions
of the bill. The bill's provisions amplify this by specifying that--no
new reclamation projects will be allowed in the wilderness area;
nothing in the bill will create a ``buffer zone'' around the wilderness
and non-wilderness activities visible or audible from within the
wilderness will not be prohibited; the National Park Service can act to
control fire, insects, and diseases, including use of mechanical tools
within the wilderness; and nothing in the bill will reduce or restrict
the current authority of the National Park Service to manage the Park's
lands and resources.
The bill is similar to measures previously introduced by my
predecessor in the House of Representatives, Representative David
Skaggs, as well as other bills introduced before that, and legislation
I introduced in the 107th, 108th, and 109th Congresses. However, it
does include a number of adjustments and refinements that reflect
discussion within the Colorado delegation in Congress and with
interested parties in Colorado.
Like H.R. 2334 of the 110th Congress, the new bill includes
wilderness designation of more than 700 acres in the Twin Sisters area
south of Estes Park. These lands were acquired by the United States and
made part of the park after submission to Congress of the original
wilderness recommendation for the park in the 1970s, and so were
not included in that recommendation. They are lands of a wilderness
character, and their designation will not conflict with any current
uses. On the west side, the town of Grand Lake and Grand County
requested that about 650 acres inward from the park boundary around the
town be omitted from the wilderness designation in order to allow the
park to respond to potential forest fire threats. As was the case
previously, this bill accommodates that request.

Also like that previous measure, the bill responds to the request of
the Town of Grand Lake, Grand County and the Headwaters Trails
Alliance, a group composed of local communities in Grand County that
seeks to establish opportunities for mountain biking, and the
International Mountain Bicycling Association to omit from wilderness
designation an area along the western park boundary, running south
along Lake Granby from the town to the park's southern boundary. This
will allow the National Park Service to retain the option of
authorizing construction of a possible future mountain bike route
within this part of the park. Similarly, the bill expands the Indian
Peaks Wilderness Area by 1,000 acres in the area south of the park and
north of Lake Granby. The lands involved are currently managed as part
of the Arapaho National Recreation Area, which is accordingly reduced
by about 1,000 acres.
As did the previous bill, this bill includes a section that
authorizes the National Park Service to lease an 11-acre property, the
Leiffer tract, that was donated to the National Park Service in 1977.
Located outside the park's boundaries, it has two buildings, including
a house that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The
Park Service would like to have the option of leasing it, but current
law allows leasing only for ``property administered . . . as part of
the National Park System,'' and this property does not qualify. The
bill allows the Park Service to lease the property as if it were
located inside or contiguous to the park.
Also like previous measures, the bill addresses the question of
possible impacts on water rights--something that can be a primary point
of contention in Congressional debates over designating wilderness
areas. It reflects the legal

[[Page S231]]

reality that it has long been recognized under the laws of the United
States and Colorado, including a decision of the Colorado Supreme
Court, that Rocky Mountain National Park already has extensive Federal
reserved water rights arising from the creation of the national park
itself. And it reflects the geographic reality that the park sits
astride the continental divide, meaning there is no higher land around
from which streams flow into the park, and thus there is no possibility
of any diversion of water occurring upstream from the park. In
recognition of these legal and practical realities, the bill includes a
finding that because the park already has these extensive reserved
rights to water, there is no need for any additional reservation or
appropriation of such right, and an explicit disclaimer that the bill
effects any such reservation.
As I mentioned, there are also provisions in this bill that deal with
the Grand River Ditch, created before Rocky Mountain National Park was
established and partly located within the park. The owners of the ditch
are currently working to conclude an agreement with the National Park
Service with respect to operation and maintenance of the portion of the
ditch within the park, and the bill provides that after conclusion of
this agreement the strict liability standard of the Park Resources
Protection Act which now applies to any damage to park resources will
not apply so long as the ditch is operated and maintained in accordance
with the agreement. The owners of the ditch remain liable for damage to
park resources caused by negligence or intentional acts, and the bill
specifies that it will not limit or otherwise affect the liability of
any individual or entity for damages to, loss of, or injury to any park
resource resulting from any cause of event occurring before the bill's
enactment. In addition, the bill specifies that its enactment will not
restrict or otherwise affect any activity relating to the monitoring,
operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, or use of the ditch that
was authorized or approved by the National Park Service as of the date
of the bill's enactment. The bill also provides that use of water
transported by the ditch for a main purpose or main purposes other than
irrigation will not terminate or adversely affect the ditch's right-of-
way.
The matters dealt with in this bill have a long history. The
wilderness designations are based on National Park Service
recommendations presented to Congress by President Richard Nixon. That
they have not been acted on before this reflects the difficult history
of wilderness legislation. One Colorado statewide wilderness bill was
enacted in 1980, but it took more than a decade before the Colorado
delegation and the Congress were finally able, in 1993, to pass a
second statewide national forest wilderness bill. Since then, action
has been completed on bills designating wilderness in the Spanish Peaks
area of the San Isabel National Forest as well as in the Black Canyon
of the Gunnison National Park, the Gunnison Gorge, the Black Ridge
portion of the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area, and the
James Peak area of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests.
We now need to continue making progress by providing wilderness
designations for other deserving lands in Colorado, including lands
that are managed by the Bureau of Land Management. And the time is ripe
for finally resolving the status of the lands within Rocky Mountain
National Park that are dealt with in this bill.
Lands covered by the bill are currently being managed to protect
their wilderness character. Formal wilderness designation will no
longer leave this question to the discretion of the Park Service, but
will make it clear that within the designated areas, there will never
be roads, visitor facilities, or other manmade features that interfere
with the spectacular natural beauty and wildness of the mountains. This
is especially important for a park like Rocky Mountain, which is
relatively small by western standards. As nearby land development and
alteration has accelerated in recent years, the pristine nature of the
park's backcountry becomes an increasingly rare feature of Colorado's
landscape. Further, the park's popularity demands definitive and
permanent protection for wild areas against possible pressures for
development within the park. While only about one tenth the size of
Yellowstone National Park, Rocky Mountain National Park sees nearly the
same number of visitors each year. At the same time, designating these
carefully selected portions of Rocky Mountain as wilderness will make
other areas, now restricted under interim wilderness protection
management, available for overdue improvements to park roads and
visitor facilities.
In summary, the Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness and Indian
Peaks Wilderness Expansion Act will protect some of our Nation's finest
wild lands. It will protect existing rights. It will not limit any
existing opportunity for new water development. It is bipartisan and
will affirm the commitment of all Coloradans to preserving the features
that make our State such a remarkable place to live. So, I think it
deserves prompt enactment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of each bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bills was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 187

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 ``Arkansas Valley Conduit Act
of 2009''.

SEC. 2. ARKANSAS VALLEY CONDUIT, COLORADO.

(a) Cost Share.--The first section of Public Law 87-590 (76
Stat. 389) is amended in the second sentence of subsection
(c) by inserting after ``cost thereof,'' the following: ``or
in the case of the Arkansas Valley Conduit, payment in an
amount equal to 35 percent of the cost of the conduit that is
comprised of revenue generated by payments pursuant to a
repayment contract and revenue that may be derived from
contracts for the use of Fryingpan-Arkansas project excess
capacity or exchange contracts using Fryingpan-Arkansas
project facilities,''.
(b) Rates.--Section 2(b) of Public Law 87-590 (76 Stat.
390) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(b) Rates'' and inserting the following:
``(b) Rates.--
``(1) In general.--Rates''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Ruedi dam and reservoir, fountain valley pipeline,
and south outlet works at pueblo dam and reservoir.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding the reclamation laws,
until the date on which the payments for the Arkansas Valley
Conduit under paragraph (3) begin, any revenue that may be
derived from contracts for the use of Fryingpan-Arkansas
project excess capacity or exchange contracts using
Fryingpan-Arkansas project facilities shall be credited
towards payment of the actual cost of Ruedi Dam and
Reservoir, the Fountain Valley Pipeline, and the South Outlet
Works at Pueblo Dam and Reservoir plus interest in an amount
determined in accordance with this section.
``(B) Effect.--Nothing in the Federal reclamation law (the
Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388, chapter 1093), and Acts
supplemental to and amendatory of that Act (43 U.S.C. 371 et
seq.)) prohibits the concurrent crediting of revenue (with
interest as provided under this section) towards payment of
the Arkansas Valley Conduit as provided under this paragraph.
``(3) Arkansas valley conduit.--
``(A) Use of revenue.--Notwithstanding the reclamation
laws, any revenue derived from contracts for the use of
Fryingpan-Arkansas project excess capacity or exchange
contracts using Fryingpan-Arkansas project facilities shall
be credited towards payment of the actual cost of the
Arkansas Valley Conduit plus interest in an amount determined
in accordance with this section.
``(B) Adjustment of rates.--Any rates charged under this
section for water for municipal, domestic, or industrial use
or for the use of facilities for the storage or delivery of
water shall be adjusted to reflect the estimated revenue
derived from contracts for the use of Fryingpan-Arkansas
project excess capacity or exchange contracts using
Fryingpan-Arkansas project facilities.''.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 7 of Public
Law 87-590 (76 Stat. 393) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Sec. 7. There is hereby'' and inserting
the following:

``SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``(a) In General.--There is''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Arkansas Valley Conduit.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to annual appropriations and
paragraph (2), there are authorized to be appropriated such
sums as are necessary for the construction of the Arkansas
Valley Conduit.
``(2) Limitation.--Amounts made available under paragraph
(1) shall not be used for the operation or maintenance of the
Arkansas Valley Conduit.''.

[[Page S232]]

____
S. 188

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 ``Colorado Northern Front
Range Mountain Backdrop Protection Study Act''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this Act is to identify options that may be
available to assist in maintaining the open space
characteristics of land that is part of the mountain backdrop
of communities in the northern section of the Front Range
area of Colorado.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest
Service.
(2) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Colorado.
(3) Study area.--
(A) In general.--The term ``study area'' means the land in
southern Boulder, northern Jefferson, and northern Gilpin
Counties, Colorado, that is located west of Colorado State
Highway 93, south and east of Colorado State Highway 119, and
north of Colorado State Highway 46, as generally depicted on
the map entitled ``Colorado Northern Front Range Mountain
Backdrop Protection Study Act: Study Area'' and dated August
27, 2008.
(B) Exclusions.--The term ``study area'' does not include
land within the city limits of the cities of Arvada, Boulder,
or Golden, Colorado.
(4) Undeveloped land.--The term ``undeveloped land'' means
land--
(A) that is located within the study area;
(B) that is free or primarily free of structures; and
(C) the development of which is likely to affect adversely
the scenic, wildlife, or recreational value of the study
area.

SEC. 4. COLORADO NORTHERN FRONT RANGE MOUNTAIN BACKDROP
STUDY.

(a) Study; Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act and except as provided in subsection
(c), the Secretary shall--
(1) conduct a study of the land within the study area; and
(2) complete a report that--
(A) identifies the present ownership of the land within the
study area;
(B) identifies any undeveloped land that may be at risk of
development; and
(C) describes any actions that could be taken by the United
States, the State, a political subdivision of the State, or
any other parties to preserve the open and undeveloped
character of the land within the study area.
(b) Requirements.--The Secretary shall conduct the study
and develop the report under subsection (a) with the support
and participation of 1 or more of the following State and
local entities:
(1) The Colorado Department of Natural Resources.
(2) Colorado State Forest Service.
(3) Colorado State Conservation Board.
(4) Great Outdoors Colorado.
(5) Boulder, Jefferson, and Gilpin Counties, Colorado.
(c) Limitation.--If the State and local entities specified
in subsection (b) do not support and participate in the
conduct of the study and the development of the report under
this section, the Secretary may--
(1) decrease the area covered by the study area, as
appropriate; or
(2)(A) opt not to conduct the study or develop the report;
and
(B) submit to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
of the Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources of the
House of Representatives notice of the decision not to
conduct the study or develop the report.
(d) Effect.--Nothing in this Act authorizes the Secretary
to take any action that would affect the use of any land not
owned by the United States.
____

S. 189

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 ``National Trails System Willing
Seller Act''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE LAND FROM WILLING SELLERS FOR
CERTAIN TRAILS.

(a) Oregon National Historic Trail.--Section 5(a)(3) of the
National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(a)(3)) is amended
by adding at the end the following: ``No land or interest in
land outside the exterior boundaries of any federally
administered area may be acquired by the Federal Government
for the trail except with the consent of the owner of the
land or interest in land. The authority of the Federal
Government to acquire fee title under this paragraph shall be
limited to an average of not more than \1/4\ mile on either
side of the trail.''.
(b) Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trail.--Section
5(a)(4) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C.
1244(a)(4)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``No land or interest in land outside the exterior boundaries
of any federally administered area may be acquired by the
Federal Government for the trail except with the consent of
the owner of the land or interest in land. The authority of
the Federal Government to acquire fee title under this
paragraph shall be limited to an average of not more than \1/
4\ mile on either side of the trail.''.
(c) Continental Divide National Scenic Trail.--Section
5(a)(5) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C.
1244(a)(5)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``No land or interest in land outside the exterior boundaries
of any federally administered area may be acquired by the
Federal Government for the trail except with the consent of
the owner of the land or interest in land. The authority of
the Federal Government to acquire fee title under this
paragraph shall be limited to an average of not more than \1/
4\ mile on either side of the trail.''.
(d) Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail.--Section
5(a)(6) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C.
1244(a)(6)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``No land or interest in land outside the exterior boundaries
of any federally administered area may be acquired by the
Federal Government for the trail except with the consent of
the owner of the land or interest in land. The authority of
the Federal Government to acquire fee title under this
paragraph shall be limited to an average of not more than \1/
4\ mile on either side of the trail.''.
(e) Iditarod National Historic Trail.--Section 5(a)(7) of
the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(a)(7)) is
amended by adding at the end the following: ``No land or
interest in land outside the exterior boundaries of any
federally administered area may be acquired by the Federal
Government for the trail except with the consent of the owner
of the land or interest in land. The authority of the Federal
government to acquire fee title under this paragraph shall be
limited to an average of not more than \1/4\ mile on either
side of the trail.''.
(f) North Country National Scenic Trail.--Section 5(a)(8)
of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(a)(8)) is
amended by adding at the end the following: ``No land or
interest in land outside the exterior boundaries of any
federally administered area may be acquired by the Federal
Government for the trail except with the consent of the owner
of the land or interest in land.''.
(g) Ice Age National Scenic Trail.--Section 5(a)(10) of the
National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(a)(10)) is amended
by adding at the end the following: ``No land or interest in
land outside the exterior boundaries of any federally
administered area may be acquired by the Federal Government
for the trail except with the consent of the owner of the
land or interest in land.''.
(h) Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail.--Section
5(a)(11) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C.
1244(a)(11)) is amended--
(1) by striking the fourth and fifth sentences; and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``No land or
interest in land outside the exterior boundaries of any
federally administered area may be acquired by the Federal
Government for the trail except with the consent of the owner
of the land or interest in land.''.
(i) Nez Perce National Historic Trail.--Section 5(a)(14) of
the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(a)(14)) is
amended--
(1) by striking the fourth and fifth sentences; and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``No land or
interest in land outside the exterior boundaries of any
federally administered area may be acquired by the Federal
Government for the trail except with the consent of the owner
of the land or interest in land. The authority of the Federal
Government to acquire fee title under this paragraph shall be
limited to an average of not more than \1/4\ mile on either
side of the trail.''.

SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

Section 10 of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C.
1249 is amended by striking subsection (c) and inserting the
following:
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
Act, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to implement the provisions of this Act relating to
the trails designated by section 5(a).
``(2) Natchez trace national scenic trail.--
``(A) In general.--With respect to the Natchez Trace
National Scenic Trail (referred to in this paragraph as the
`trail') designated by section 5(a)(12)--
``(i) not more than $500,000 shall be appropriated for the
acquisition of land or interests in land for the trail; and
``(ii) not more than $2,000,000 shall be appropriated for
the development of the trail.
``(B) Participation by volunteer trail groups.--The
administering agency for the trail shall encourage volunteer
trail groups to participate in the development of the
trail.''.
____

S. 190

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 ``Rocky Mountain National Park
Wilderness and Indian Peaks Wilderness Expansion Act''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to include in the National Wilderness Preservation
System certain land within the Rocky Mountain National Park,
Colorado, to protect--
(A) the enduring scenic and historic wilderness character
and unique wildlife values of the land; and
(B) the scientific, educational, inspirational, and
recreational resources, values, and opportunities of the
land; and

[[Page S233]]

(2) to adjust the boundaries of the Indian Peaks Wilderness
and Arapaho National Recreation Area of the Arapaho National
Forest.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Map.--The term ``Map'' means the map entitled ``Rocky
Mountain National Park, Colorado Wilderness Boundaries'' and
dated September 2006.
(2) Park.--The term ``Park'' means the Rocky Mountain
National Park in the State.
(3) Potential wilderness land.--The term ``potential
wilderness land'' means--
(A) the land identified on the Map as potential wilderness;
and
(B) any land acquired by the United States on or after the
date of enactment of this Act that is--
(i) located within the boundaries of the Park; and
(ii) contiguous with any land designated as wilderness by
section 4(a).
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(5) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Colorado.
(6) Trail.--The term ``Trail'' means the East Shore Trail
established under section 5(a).
(7) Wilderness.--The term ``Wilderness'' means the Rocky
Mountain National Park Wilderness designated by section 4(a).

SEC. 4. ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK WILDERNESS.

(a) Designation.--In furtherance of the purposes of the
Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), there is designated
as wilderness and as a component of the National Wilderness
Preservation System approximately 249,339 acres of land in
the Park, as generally depicted on the Map, which shall be
known as the ``Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness''.
(b) Map and Boundary Description.--
(1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a
map and boundary description of the Wilderness.
(2) Availability.--The map and boundary description
submitted under paragraph (1) shall be on file and available
for public inspection in the Office of the Director of the
National Park Service.
(3) Corrections.--The Secretary may correct clerical and
typographical errors in the map and boundary description
submitted under paragraph (1).
(4) Effect.--The map and boundary description submitted
under paragraph (1) shall have the same force and effect as
if included in this Act.
(c) Inclusion of Potential Wilderness Land.--
(1) In general.--On publication in the Federal Register of
a notice by the Secretary that all uses of a parcel of
potential wilderness land inconsistent with the Wilderness
Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) have ceased, the parcel shall
be--
(A) included in the Wilderness; and
(B) managed in accordance with this section.
(2) Map and boundary description.--The Secretary shall
modify the map and boundary description prepared under
subsection (b) to reflect the inclusion of the parcel in the
Wilderness.
(d) Exclusion of Certain Land.--The boundaries of the
Wilderness shall specifically exclude:
(1) The Grand River Ditch (including the main canal of the
Grand River Ditch and a branch of the main canal known as the
``Specimen Ditch''), the right-of-way for the Grand River
Ditch, land 200 feet on each side of the marginal limits of
the Ditch, and any associated appurtenances, structures,
buildings, camps, and work sites in existence as of June 1,
1998.
(2) Land owned by the St. Vrain & Left Hand Water
Conservancy District, including Copeland Reservoir and the
Inlet Ditch to the Reservoir from the North St. Vrain Creek,
comprising approximately 35.38 acres.
(3) Lands owned by the Wincentsen-Harms Trust, comprising
approximately 2.75 acres.
(4) Land within the area depicted as the ``East Shore Trail
Area'' on the map prepared under subsection (b)(1).
(e) Administration.--
(1) In general.--Subject to valid existing rights, any land
designated as wilderness under subsection (a) or added to the
Wilderness after the date of enactment of this Act under
subsection (c) shall be administered by the Secretary in
accordance with--
(A) the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.); and
(B) this Act.
(2) Effective date of wilderness act.--With respect to the
land designated as Wilderness by subsection (a) or added to
the Wilderness after the date of enactment of this Act under
subsection (c), any reference in the Wilderness Act (16
U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) to the effective date of the Wilderness
Act shall be deemed to be a reference to the date of
enactment of this Act or the date of enactment of the Act
adding the land to the Wilderness, respectively.
(3) Water rights.--
(A) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(i) according to decisions of the State courts, the United
States has existing rights to water within the Park;
(ii) the existing water rights are sufficient for the
purposes of the Wilderness; and
(iii) based on the findings described in clauses (i) and
(ii), there is no need for the United States to reserve or
appropriate any additional water rights to fulfill the
purposes of the Wilderness.
(B) No reservation of water rights.--Nothing in this Act or
any action carried out pursuant to this Act shall constitute
an express or implied reservation by the United States of
water or water rights for any purpose.
(4) Grand river ditch.--
(A) Liability.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
or any stipulation or applicable agreement, during any period
in which the Water Supply and Storage Company (or any
successor in interest to the Water Supply and Storage Company
with respect to the Grand River Ditch) operates and maintains
the portion of the Grand River Ditch within the Park in
compliance with an operations and maintenance agreement
between the Water Supply and Storage Company and the National
Park Service entered into on ____________, no individual or
entity who owns, controls, or operates the Grand River Ditch
shall be liable for any response costs or for any damages to,
loss of, or injury to the resources of the Park resulting
from any cause or event (including, but not limited to, water
escaping from any part of the Grand River Ditch by overflow
or as a result of a breach, failure, or partial failure of
any portion of the Grand River Ditch, including the portion
of the ditch located outside the Park), unless the damages
to, loss of, or injury to the resources are proximately
caused by the negligence or an intentional act of the
individual or entity.
(B) Limitation.--Nothing in this section limits or
otherwise affects any liability of any individual or entity
for damages to, loss of, or injury to any resource of the
Park resulting from any cause or event that occurred before
the date of enactment of this Act.
(C) Existing activities.--Nothing in this Act, including
the designation of the Wilderness under this section, shall
restrict or otherwise affect any activity (including an
activity carried out in response to an emergency or
catastrophic event) on, under, or affecting the Wilderness or
land excluded under subsection (d)(1) relating to the
monitoring, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, or
use of the Grand River Ditch that was authorized or approved
by the Secretary as of the date of enactment of this Act.
(D) No effect.--Notwithstanding any other provision of any
previous or existing law, any stipulation, or any agreement,
or interpretation thereof, use of water transported by the
Grand River Ditch for a main purpose or main purposes other
than irrigation shall not terminate or adversely affect the
right-of-way of the Grand River Ditch, and such right-of-way
shall not be deemed relinquished, forfeited, or lost, solely
because such water is used for a main purpose or main
purposes other than irrigation.
(5) Colorado-big thompson project and windy gap project.--
(A) Existing activities.--Activities (including activities
that are necessary because of emergencies or catastrophic
events) on, under, or affecting the Wilderness relating to
the monitoring, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement,
or use of the Alva B. Adams Tunnel at its designed capacity
and all other Colorado-Big Thompson Project facilities
located within the Park that were allowed as of the date of
enactment of this Act under the Act of January 26, 1915 (16
U.S.C. 191)--
(i) shall be allowed to continue; and
(ii) shall not be affected by the designation of the
Wilderness under this section.
(B) Effect.--Nothing in this Act or the designation of the
Wilderness shall prohibit or restrict the conveyance of any
water through the Alva B. Adams Tunnel for any purpose.
(C) New reclamation projects.--Nothing in the first section
of the Act of January 26, 1915 (16 U.S.C. 191), shall be
construed to allow development in the Wilderness of any
reclamation project not in existence as of the date of
enactment of this Act.
(6) No buffer zone.--
(A) In general.--Nothing in this Act creates a protective
perimeter or buffer zone around the Wilderness.
(B) Activities outside wilderness.--The fact that a
nonwilderness activity or use can be seen or heard from
within the Wilderness shall not preclude the conduct of the
activity or use outside the boundary of the Wilderness.
(7) Fire, insect, and disease control.--In accordance with
section 4(d)(1) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(1)),
the Secretary may take such measures in the Wilderness as are
necessary to control fire, insects, and diseases, including
the use of mechanized tools, subject to such conditions as
the Secretary determines to be desirable.
(8) Management authority.--Nothing in this Act shall be
construed as reducing or restricting the authority of the
Secretary to manage the lands and other resources within the
Park pursuant to the Act of January 26, 1915 (16 U.S.C. 191),
and other laws applicable to the Park as of the date of
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 5. EAST SHORE TRAIL AREA IN ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL
PARK.

(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish within
the East Shore Trail Area in Rocky Mountain National Park an
alignment line for a trail, to

[[Page S234]]

be known as the ``East Shore Trail'', to maximize the
opportunity for sustained use of the Trail without causing--
(1) harm to affected resources; or
(2) conflicts among users.
(b) Boundaries.--
(1) In general.--After establishing the alignment line for
the Trail under subsection (a), the Secretary shall--
(A) identify the boundaries of the Trail, which shall not
extend more than 25 feet east of the alignment line or be
located within the wilderness area; and
(B) modify the map of the Wilderness prepared under section
4(b)(1) so that the western boundary of the Wilderness is 50
feet east of the alignment line.
(2) Adjustments.--To the extent necessary to protect
National Park System resources, the Secretary may adjust the
boundaries of the Trail, if the adjustment does not place any
portion of the Trail within the boundary of the Wilderness.
(c) Inclusion in Wilderness.--On completion of the
construction of the Trail, as authorized by the Secretary--
(1) any portion of the East Shore Trail Area that is not
traversed by the Trail, that is not west of the Trail, and
that is not within 50 feet of the centerline of the Trail
shall be--
(A) included in the Wilderness; and
(B) managed as part of the Wilderness in accordance with
section 4; and
(2) the Secretary shall modify the map and boundary
description of the wilderness prepared under section 4(b)(1)
to reflect the inclusion of the East Shore Trail Area land in
the Wilderness.
(d) Effect.--Nothing in this section--
(1) requires the construction of the Trail along the
alignment line established under subsection (a); or
(2) limits the extent to which any otherwise applicable law
or policy applies to any decision with respect to the
construction of the Trail.
(e) Relation to Land Outside Wilderness.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in this subsection,
nothing in this Act shall affect the management or use of any
land not included within the boundaries of the Wilderness or
the potential wilderness land.
(2) Motorized vehicles and machinery.--No use of motorized
vehicles or other motorized machinery that was not permitted
on March 1, 2006, shall be allowed in the East Shore Trail
Area except as the Secretary determines to be necessary for
use in--
(A) constructing the Trail, if the construction is
authorized by the Secretary; or
(B) maintaining the Trail.
(3) Management of land before inclusion.--Until the
Secretary authorizes the construction of the Trail and the
use of the Trail for non-motorized bicycles, the East Shore
Trail Area shall be managed--
(A) to protect any wilderness characteristics of the East
Shore Trail Area; and
(B) to maintain the suitability of the East Shore Trail
Area for inclusion in the Wilderness.

SEC. 6. INDIAN PEAKS WILDERNESS AND ARAPAHO NATIONAL
RECREATION AREA BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.

(a) Indian Peaks Wilderness Boundary Adjustment.--Section
3(a) of the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area, the Arapaho
National Recreation Area and the Oregon Islands Wilderness
Area Act (16 U.S.C. 1132 note; Public Law 95-450) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``seventy thousand acres'' and inserting
``74,195 acres''; and
(2) by striking ``dated July 1978'' and inserting ``dated
May 2007''.
(b) Arapaho National Recreation Area Boundary Adjustment.--
Section 4(a) of the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area, the Arapaho
National Recreation Area and the Oregon Islands Wilderness
Area Act (16 U.S.C. 460jj(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``thirty-six thousand two hundred thirty-
five acres'' and inserting ``35,235 acres''; and
(2) by striking ``dated July 1978'' and inserting ``dated
May 2007''.

SEC. 7. AUTHORITY TO LEASE LEIFFER TRACT.

(a) In General.--Section 3(k) of Public Law 91-383 (16
U.S.C. 1a-2(k)) shall apply to the parcel of land described
in subsection (b).
(b) Description of the Land.--The parcel of land referred
to in subsection (a) is the parcel of land known as the
``Leiffer tract'' that is--
(1) located near the eastern boundary of Rocky Mountain
National Park in Larimer County, Colorado; and
(2) administered by the National Park Service.
______

By Mr. NELSON of Florida:
S.J. Res. 4. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States to abolish the electoral college and
to provide for the direct popular election of the President and Vice
President of the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, earlier today, the Congress met
in a joint session, as it does every 4 years in early January, to
conduct the official count of the electoral ballots from the States.
Most Americans pay no attention to this ritual, believing that
presidential elections in this country get decided on Election Day. But
it is the votes of the Electoral College, presented by each State to
the Congress, that determine who our next President and Vice President
are going to be. We are the beacon of democracy in the world, and yet,
voters in this country do not have the opportunity to elect their
leaders directly.
Today, I am introducing a constitutional amendment to abolish the
Electoral College to allow direct election of the President by popular
vote. If the principle of one person, one vote is to mean anything, it
is that the candidate who wins a majority of the votes wins the
Presidency, and votes for every candidate from every State should
count.
On only a few occasions in our history, the candidate who lost the
popular vote won the Electoral College and became president. In 2000,
George W. Bush actually lost the nationwide popular election to Al Gore
by nearly 544,000 votes, yet won the presidency in a Supreme Court
showdown over Florida's Electoral College votes that hinged on far
fewer disputed State ballots. That dispute undermined Americans'
confidence in our democracy and should not be allowed to happen again.
In addition, the Electoral College skews the way candidates for
president campaign, causing them to focus only on contested
``battleground States''. As the Miami Herald recognized in an editorial
published the day after the 2008 election, the Electoral College is a
``horse-and-buggy-era political contraption,'' which effectively shuts
out the majority of Americans--those who don't live in one of the key
battleground States--from any meaningful participation in the selection
of our President.
A recently released study by FairVote, the Center for Voting and
Democracy, documents just how lopsided the Electoral College has made
presidential elections: more than 98 percent of all campaign events and
more than 98 percent of all campaign spending occurred in 15 large and
small battleground States representing 36.6 percent of the Nation's
eligible voter population. Of the 300 campaign events by the major
presidential candidates held between September 5 and November 4, 2008,
fully 57 percent of these events took place in four States--Ohio,
Florida, Pennsylvania, and Virginia--representing just 17 percent of
the Nation's eligible voters. Voter turnout was 67 percent in the 15
battleground States and only 61 percent in the remaining 35 States.
The simple and straightforward constitutional amendment simply
provides for the direct election of the President and Vice President,
based on the national popular vote from the 50 States, the U.S.
territories, and the District of Columbia.
The proposed amendment also confirms--consistent with the vision of
the Framers--that it is within Congress's power to set the time, place
and manner--as well as other key criteria--for holding Federal
elections. Unlike some proposed constitutional amendments that have
been introduced in the past, my proposal does not delve into additional
detail by specifying the qualifications for voters or by imposing a
majority requirement for an election, leaving those issues for the
Congress to address through the legislative process. Rather, the
amendment keeps the focus where it belongs--on enshrining in our
Constitution the principle of one person, one vote, in the election of
our President.
I first introduced this constitutional amendment during the previous
Congress, as part of a broader package of reforms that also included
measures to make it easier to vote, for example, by encouraging early
voting or no-fault absentee voting; to ensure that there is a
verifiable paper ballot so that every vote cast gets counted; and to
allow voters, not party bosses, to select presidential candidates. I
plan to file these other election reforms early in this Congress.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint
resolution be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the joint resolution was
ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

S.J. Res. 4

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following article is proposed as an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, which shall be

[[Page S235]]

valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution
when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the
several States within seven years after the date of its
submission by the Congress:

``Article--

``Section 1. The President and Vice President shall be
jointly elected by the direct vote of the qualified electors
of the several States and territories and the District
constituting the seat of Government of the United States. The
electors in each State, territory, and the District
constituting the seat of Government of the United States
shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the
most numerous branch of the legislative body where they
reside.
``Section 2. Congress may determine the time, place, and
manner of holding the election, the entitlement to inclusion
on the ballot, and the manner in which the results of the
election shall be ascertained and declared.''.

____________________