[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 23, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S700-S709]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Kaufman, Mr. Schumer, and Ms. 
        Klobuchar):
  S. 3017. A bill to protect State and local witnesses from tampering 
and retaliation, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce 
legislation to make it a Federal offense to intimidate or threaten a 
witness in a State court proceeding.
  This legislation I believe to be necessary based upon some very 
disastrous experiences in the criminal courts in Philadelphia, as 
evidenced by a lengthy series of articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer 
and a field hearing which the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs 
held in Philadelphia. What has occurred is that in many instances, 
witnesses are intimidated--even murdered--to prevent them from 
testifying.
  The crime scenes in our big cities are atrocious. I spent eight years 
as the district attorney of Philadelphia. When I left that position, I 
didn't think the crime problem could be worse, but regrettably it is 
now, in many aspects. One of the aspects has been for the young thugs 
who are under accusation or friends of those who are under charge to go 
to the witnesses and terrify them and even murder them. During the 
course of the field hearing, we had two parents testify about how their 
children were brutally murdered.
  It is a violation of State law to intimidate a witness, but making it 
a Federal offense imports a great deal more pressure, more power to the 
situation. People do not like the Federal presence, the initiation of a 
criminal case, the investigation by the FBI, and the treatment of the 
Federal courts is materially different--at least in Philadelphia--than 
it is in the State court proceedings.
  I think this kind of legislation would be very salutary. If you don't 
have the integrity of the judicial process protected, it is a very sad 
day in the administration of justice. I introduced this legislation on 
behalf of Senator Schumer, Senator Klobuchar, and Senator Kaufman.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my 
statement and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record as follows:

       Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to 
     introduce the State Witness Protection Act of 2010. I am 
     joined on this legislation by Senators Kaufman, Schumer and 
     Klobuchar as original cosponsors.
       As reported by the Philadelphia Inquirer on December 14, 
     2009, ``[p]rosecutors, detectives, and even some defense 
     attorneys say witness fear has become an unspoken factor in 
     virtually every court case involving violent crime in 
     Philadelphia. Reluctant or terrified witnesses routinely fail 
     to appear in court, and when they do, they often recant their 
     earlier testimony or statement to police.''
       One Philadelphia Assistant District Attorney is quoted in 
     the article saying that at least one witness in every murder 
     trial recants. As a result, Assistant District Attorneys 
     learn to ``lock in'' witness testimony early with signed 
     statements and testimony under oath, and are expert in cross-
     examining witnesses who ``go south.'' At times, the 
     prosecutors are forced to lock up witnesses on material 
     witness warrants to assure their appearance at trial.
       In Philadelphia between 2006 and 2008, the District 
     Attorney's Office filed witness intimidation charges against 
     approximately 1,000 individuals. Their conviction rate on 
     these charges, however, is only 28%.
       Witness intimidation and violent crime are problems that I 
     have worked on for decades, since I was an Assistant District 
     Attorney and later District Attorney in Philadelphia, and on 
     the Judiciary Committee, where I have served since 1981 when 
     I was sworn in.
       Criminal trials cannot proceed unless there are witnesses, 
     and if witnesses are subject to intimidation or even worse, 
     murdered, criminal cases cannot go forward. And unless 
     witnesses can be assured they will be protected, the problem 
     of witness intimidation cannot be expected to go away.
       Philadelphia's witness intimidation problems are similar to 
     those faced by many communities in our country. A recent Op-
     Ed in the Chicago Tribune stated that witnesses often want to 
     cooperate with police, but the risk of retribution is too 
     great. The article posed the following question ``What would 
     happen if we diminished the risk and created a greater sense 
     of assurance that the law would do its job in actually making 
     the streets safe as well as protecting those who decide to 
     turn killers in?''
       On January 8, 2010, I chaired a field hearing in 
     Philadelphia for the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime 
     and Drugs on witness intimidation to explore how law 
     enforcement can better protect witnesses. Two parents--each 
     who lost a child to gun violence--testified. Barbara Clowden 
     told us that her son Eric Hayes, 17 years old, was killed 
     just two days before he was to testify in an arson trial in 
     Philadelphia. Because Eric's life had been threatened, in 
     January 2006 his family entered into the city's witness 
     relocation program. Eventually the money from the program ran 
     out and they had to relocate to Northeast Philadelphia where 
     Eric was murdered. No one to date has been convicted of 
     Eric's murder.
       Ted Canada is a Philadelphia resident and SEPTA bus driver. 
     In 2005, his son Lamar Canada was shot 12 times and killed by 
     Dominick Peoples and another unidentified shooter in 
     Philadelphia over a gambling debt. One witness to the 
     shooting, Johnta Gravitt, 17 years old, was murdered 10 days 
     after he testified at the preliminary hearing and identified 
     Peoples as one of the shooters. Another witness initially 
     cooperated but after his statement to the police was publicly 
     posted in his neighborhood identifying him as a ``snitch,'' 
     he recanted. Peoples, nevertheless, was convicted.
       The most notorious example of witness intimidation in 
     Philadelphia involves Kaboni Savage, a drug kingpin who was 
     federally indicted last April on racketeering and murder 
     charges for retaliating against his former drug associate, 
     Eugene Coleman. Coleman had agreed to testify against Savage 
     in a federal trial. The federal charges allege that to 
     retaliate for this, Savage orchestrated the firebombing of 
     Coleman's family home on the 3200 block of North 6th Street 
     in Philadelphia during the early morning hours of October 9, 
     2004. Killed in the fire were Coleman's mother, Marcella 
     Coleman (age 54); Coleman's infant son, Damir Jenkins (15 
     months old); Marcella Coleman's niece, Tameka Nash (age 34), 
     and her daughter, Khadjah Nash (age 10); Marcella Coleman's 
     grandson, Tahj Porchea (age 12); and a family friend, Sean 
     Rodriguez (age 15). In a conversation secretly recorded by 
     court authorized wiretaps, Savage explained how witness 
     intimidation works, ``Without the witnesses, you don't have 
     no case . . . No witness, no crime.''
       The witness intimidation problem is exacerbated by internet 
     sites, such as whosarat.com, which expose the identities of 
     witnesses and government informants. Gang members and 
     criminals are becoming more computer savvy. They use the 
     internet to find out who may be a cooperating witness by 
     accessing public court dockets. They also access other sites 
     to locate these individuals. With this information obtained 
     anonymously through the internet, gang members and other 
     criminals can easily threaten or harm witnesses, as well as 
     their family members.
       It is imperative that we find a way to make people feel 
     safe if they step forward and provide information to law 
     enforcement. As Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles H. 
     Ramsey testified at the Subcommittee hearing, ``the only way 
     we're going to deal with crime in communities is when the 
     community steps forward, but they have to feel comfortable in 
     doing so and know they have support.''
       To better protect state witnesses from witness tampering 
     and witness retaliation, I am introducing today The State 
     Witness Protection Act of 2010, a bill that ensures that 
     state witnesses will receive the same protections

[[Page S701]]

     from actions of intimidation and retaliation as federal 
     witnesses have under federal law. Making this a federal 
     offense and bringing in the FBI to investigate, as 
     Commissioner Ramsey testified, ``would make a tremendous 
     difference and make people think twice before they'' engaged 
     in witness intimidation He explained it this way--
       I just think the whole environment or atmosphere when you 
     go into a Federal court versus a local court is just somewhat 
     different, and they [defendants] haven't been exposed to it 
     that often. I just think it has an impact in the feedback 
     I've gotten from people on both sides, whether it's another 
     law enforcement agency or from a person who's been in the 
     criminal justice system. They do not want to go into Federal 
     court. (Tr. At 16).
       The bill, which tracks the language of 18 U.S.C. 
     Sec. Sec. 1512 and 1513, provides the same penalties as now 
     provided in federal court for witness tampering in state 
     court proceedings. For state court proceedings, the bill 
     makes it a federal offense to kill, physically harm, threaten 
     to physically harm, harass, or intimidate, or offer anything 
     of value to, a state court witness or victim if done--
       with the intent to influence another person's testimony;
       with the intent to induce another to withhold testimony or 
     records, alter or destroy evidence, evade legal process, or 
     be absent from a state proceeding if that person has been 
     summoned by legal process;
       with the intent to hinder or prevent a person from 
     providing information to law enforcement; or
       with the intent to retaliate against anyone for being a 
     witness or providing testimony or information to law 
     enforcement.
       Federal jurisdiction is established by prosecuting only 
     cases where there are communications in furtherance of the 
     offense by mail, interstate or foreign commerce by any means, 
     including computer, interstate or foreign travel in 
     furtherance of the commission of the offense, or the use of 
     weapons which have been shipped or transported across state 
     lines. Any attempt or conspiracy to commit these same 
     offenses is also illegal and subject to the same penalties. 
     And finally, the bill provides for specific guideline 
     enhancements for all obstruction offenses.
       The message must be sent loud and clear that serious 
     penalties will be imposed on those who dare to attempt to 
     obstruct justice in our country. The ``State Witness 
     Protection Act of 2010'' is a strong means of delivering that 
     necessary message.
                                  ____


                                S. 3017

       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 ``State Witness Protection Act 
     of 2010''.

     SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF STATE AND LOCAL WITNESSES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 73 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1522. State and local witness tampering and 
       retaliation

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `State official proceeding' means a 
     proceeding before a judge or court of a State or political 
     subdivision thereof; and
       ``(2) the term `physical force' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 1515.
       ``(b) Tampering and Retaliation.--It shall be unlawful, in 
     a circumstance described in subsection (c), for a person to 
     kill, attempt to kill, use physical force or the threat of 
     physical force against, harass, intimidate or attempt to 
     intimidate, or offer anything of value to, another 
     individual, with the intent to--
       ``(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony or 
     attendance of any person in a State official proceeding;
       ``(2) prevent the production of a record, document, or 
     other object, in a State official proceeding;
       ``(3) cause or induce any person to--
       ``(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, 
     or other object from a State official proceeding;
       ``(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with 
     intent to impair the integrity or availability of the object 
     for use in a State official proceeding;
       ``(C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear 
     as a witness, or to produce a record, document or other 
     object in a State official proceeding; or
       ``(D) be absent from a State official proceeding to which 
     that person has been summoned by legal process;
       ``(4) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication by any 
     person to a law enforcement officer or judge of a State, or 
     political subdivision thereof, of information relating to the 
     violation or possible violation of a law of a State or 
     political subdivision thereof, or a violation of conditions 
     of probation, parole, or release pending judicial 
     proceedings; or
       ``(5) retaliate against any person for--
       ``(A) the attendance of a witness or party at a State 
     official proceeding, or any testimony given or any record, 
     document, or other object produced by a witness in a State 
     official proceeding; or
       ``(B) providing to a law enforcement officer any 
     information relating to the violation or possible violation 
     of a law of a State or political subdivision thereof, or a 
     violation of conditions of probation, supervised release, 
     parole, or release pending judicial proceedings.
       ``(c) Circumstances.--A circumstance described in this 
     subsection is that--
       ``(1) any communication involved in or made in furtherance 
     of the offense is communicated or transported by the mail, or 
     in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by 
     computer, or any means or instrumentality of interstate or 
     foreign commerce is otherwise used in committing or in 
     furtherance of the commission of the offense;
       ``(2) any person travels or is transported in interstate or 
     foreign commerce in the course of the commission of or in 
     furtherance of the commission of the offense; or
       ``(3) any weapon, including a firearm, shipped or 
     transported across State lines or in interstate or foreign 
     commerce is used in committing or in furtherance of the 
     commission of the offense.
       ``(d) Penalties.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any person that violates this section--
       ``(A) in the case of a killing, shall be punished as 
     provided under sections 1111 and 1112;
       ``(B) in the case of an attempt to murder, or the use or 
     attempted use of physical force against any person, shall be 
     fined under this title, or imprisoned for not more than 30 
     years, or both; and
       ``(C) in the case of any other violation of this section, 
     shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 
     20 years, or both.
       ``(2) Exception.--If the offense under this section occurs 
     in connection with a trial of a criminal case, the maximum 
     term of imprisonment that may be imposed for the offense 
     shall be the higher of--
       ``(A) the penalty described in paragraph (1); or
       ``(B) the maximum term that could have been imposed for any 
     offense charged in the criminal case.
       ``(3) Attempt and conspiracy.--Any person who attempts or 
     conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be 
     subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the 
     offense, the commission of which was the object of the 
     attempt or conspiracy.
       ``(e) Affirmative Defense.--It is an affirmative defense to 
     a prosecution under this section, which the defendant shall 
     prove by a preponderance of the evidence, that the conduct 
     committed by the defendant--
       ``(1) consisted solely of lawful conduct; and
       ``(2) that the sole intention of the defendant was to 
     encourage, induce, or cause the other person to testify 
     truthfully.
       ``(f) Pending Proceeding; Evidentiary Value.--For the 
     purposes of this section--
       ``(1) a State official proceeding need not be pending or 
     about to be instituted at the time of the offense; and
       ``(2) the testimony, or the record, document, or other 
     object obstructed, tampered, or retaliated against by the 
     defendant need not be admissible in evidence or free of a 
     claim of privilege.
       ``(g) Intent.--In a prosecution for an offense under this 
     section, the state of mind need not be proved with respect 
     to--
       ``(1) a State official proceeding before a judge, court, 
     magistrate judge, or grand jury being before a judge or court 
     of a State or political subdivision thereof;
       ``(2) a judge being a judge of a State or political 
     subdivision thereof; or
       ``(3) a law enforcement officer being an officer or 
     employee of the State or political subdivision thereof.
       ``(h) Venue.--A prosecution brought under this section may 
     be brought--
       ``(1) in the district in which the State official 
     proceeding (whether or not pending or about to be instituted) 
     was intended to be affected; or
       ``(2) in the district which the conduct constituting the 
     alleged offense occurred.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     contents for chapter 73 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``1522. State and local witness tampering and retaliation.''.

     SEC. 3. SENTENCING GUIDELINES ENHANCEMENT.

       Pursuant to its authority under section 994 of title 28, 
     United States Code, and in accordance with this section, the 
     United States Sentencing Commission shall amend the Federal 
     Sentencing Guidelines to increase the guideline range for 
     Obstruction of Justice, Sec. 2J1.2, as follows--
       (1) by 2 levels if the defendant threatened or harmed 1 or 
     more individuals on more than 1 occasion;
       (2) by 2 levels if the defendant accepted or paid a bribe 
     or payoff as part of a scheme to obstruct justice;
       (3) by 2 levels if the defendant destroyed or caused the 
     destruction of documents on a computer; and
       (4) by 6 levels if the offense resulted in substantial 
     interference with the administration of justice.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Merkley, and Mrs. 
        Gillibrand):
  S. 3019. A bill to authorize funding for, and increase accessibility 
to, the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System, to facilitate 
data sharing between such system and the National Crime Information 
Center database of

[[Page S702]]

the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to provide incentive grants to 
help facilitate reporting to such systems, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Help Find the 
Missing Act, otherwise known as Billy's Law, which I am introducing 
today along with my colleagues, Senators Schumer, Gillibrand and 
Merkley.
  I was introduced to the issues Billy's Law addresses by two of my 
constituents, Jan and Bill Smolinski, who have lived through a parent's 
worst nightmare: the disappearance of their son.
  On the afternoon of August 24, 2004, then-31-year-old Billy Smolinski 
disappeared without a trace. He left behind a dog he loved and his 
brandnew house; a truck with his keys and wallet still inside; and 
parents who have spent every day since searching for him and praying 
for his return. One moment he was there, asking his neighbors to look 
after his dog for a few days, and the next he was gone without 
explanation.
  Jan and Bill Smolinski have spent countless hours working with law 
enforcement to try to find Billy. Through that experience, they 
discovered that we do a poor job managing data about missing adults. 
The bill we are introducing today will help correct those shortcomings 
so that families in similar situations can focus only on their missing 
loved ones and not have to worry that their agony will be prolonged 
simply because we fail to keep track of--and share--critical 
identifying data.
  Billy's Law does three things: It facilitates the sharing of data 
about missing people between agencies; it requires law enforcement to 
compile and track missing persons data that is not currently being 
collected consistently; and it provides funding to improve, monitor, 
and maintain that data.
  It is my hope that no parent will ever have to experience what Jan 
and Bill Smolinski are going through, and, as a parent, my heart truly 
goes out to them. Passing Billy's Law will help give families of 
missing adults confidence that we are doing everything we can to 
carefully track the information necessary to locate their loved ones.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Bond, and Mr. 
        Merkley):
  S. 3020. A bill to direct the Administrator of the Small Business 
Administration to reform and improve the HUBZone program for small 
business concerns, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Small 
Business and Entrepreneurship.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Landrieu, 
Bond, and Merkley to introduce the Historically Underutilized Business 
Zone, HUBZone, Improvement Act of 2010. This vital piece of bipartisan 
legislation is similar to that which I introduced in the 110th 
Congress, S. 3699. The purpose of the bill is to help ensure that only 
eligible firms participate in the critical HUBZone program by requiring 
that the Small Business Administration, SBA, implement Government 
Accountability Office, GAO, recommendations for improving the 
management, oversight and evaluation of the program.
  As former Chair and now Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on 
Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have long championed critical 
small business programs such as the HUBZone program, which provides 
Federal contracting opportunities to small firms located in 
economically distressed areas.
  The program is devised to help stimulate economic development and job 
creation. In these troubled economic times, a properly functioning 
HUBZone program is essential for nation-wide economic recovery. 
According to the SBA, as of October 2009, 21,222 certified businesses 
have participated in the HUBZone program since its inception in 1997. 
In fiscal year 2008, HUBZone firms were awarded approximately $10.1 
billion in Federal contracts. And let there be no doubt--with the 
Federal Government contracting for over $500 billion in goods and 
services in fiscal year 2009 alone--we must have a robust and 
trustworthy HUBZone program for small businesses to continue generating 
jobs in our nation's most economically distressed communities.
  The GAO has issued multiple reports detailing fraud and abuses within 
the HUBZone program. Alarmingly, the GAO found that the mechanisms the 
SBA uses to certify and monitor HUBZone firms provide limited assurance 
that only eligible firms participate in the program. The GAO 
specifically stated that the ``SBA's control weaknesses exposed the 
government to fraud and abuse.'' The GAO also had concerns that the SBA 
had no mechanisms to adequately assess program results.
  The legislation I am introducing today would take immediate steps to 
rectify the serious issues that GAO found. The bill requires the SBA to 
implement the GAO recommendations resulting from the study and audits. 
These include maintaining an accurate, correct and up-to-date map; 
implementing policies that ensure that only eligible firms participate 
in the program; employing appropriate technology to control costs and 
maximize other benefits, such as uniformity, completeness, 
simplification and efficiency; notifying the Congressional Small 
Business Committees of any backlogs in applications and 
recertifications with plans and timetables for eliminating the 
backlogs; and implementing plans to assess the effectiveness of the 
HUBZone program.
  Moreover, the Federal Government must strive to continue to provide 
maximum practicable contracting opportunities to those who are 
legitimate HUBZone firms. I am dismayed by the myriad ways that 
government departments and agencies have time and again egregiously 
failed to meet most of their statutory small business contracting 
goals. I am alarmed that only one Federal small business contracting 
program--the Small Disadvantaged Business program--has met its 
statutory goal, and that the three other small business goaling 
programs have all fallen drastically short. In fiscal year 2008, the 
Federal Government met only 2.34 percent of its 3 percent government-
wide goal for the HUBZone program. Even worse, the Federal Government 
missed meeting its overall goal for small business contracting by 
almost 2 percent, depriving small businesses of over $10 billion.
  I am confident that this legislation will require the changes 
necessary to eliminate fraud while paving the way for the Federal 
Government to maximize the use of this contracting vehicle. In turn, 
qualified HUBZone firms will provide the essential job creation and 
economic development necessary in their respective communities. The 
HUBZone program is a tremendous tool for replacing lost jobs across all 
industry sectors in distressed geographic areas, and clearly, this 
program should be better utilized.
  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. 3020

       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 ``HUBZone Improvement Act of 
     2010''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act--
       (1) the terms ``Administration'' and ``Administrator'' mean 
     the Small Business Administration and the Administrator 
     thereof, respectively;
       (2) the terms ``HUBZone'' and ``HUBZone small business 
     concern'' and ``HUBZone map'' have the meanings given those 
     terms in section 3(p) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     632(p)), as amended by this Act; and
       (3) the term ``recertification'' means a determination by 
     the Administrator that a business concern that was previously 
     determined to be a qualified HUBZone small business concern 
     is a qualified HUBZone small business concern under section 
     3(p)(5) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(p)(5)).

     SEC. 3. PURPOSE; FINDINGS.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to reform and 
     improve the HUBZone program of the Administration.
       (b) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the HUBZone program was established under the HUBZone 
     Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-135; 111 Stat. 2627) to stimulate 
     economic development through increased employment and capital 
     investment by providing Federal contracting preferences to 
     small business concerns in those areas, including inner 
     cities and rural counties, that have low household incomes, 
     high unemployment, and suffered from a lack of investment; 
     and
       (2) according to the Government Accountability Office, the 
     weakness in the oversight

[[Page S703]]

     of the HUBZone program by the Administration has exposed the 
     Government to fraud and abuse.

     SEC. 4. HUBZONE IMPROVEMENTS.

       The Administrator shall--
       (1) ensure the HUBZone map--
       (A) is accurate and up-to date; and
       (B) revised as new data is made available to maintain the 
     accuracy and currency of the HUBZone map;
       (2) implement policies for ensuring that only HUBZone small 
     business concerns determined to be qualified under section 
     3(p)(5) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(p)(5)) are 
     participating in the HUBZone program, including through the 
     appropriate use of technology to control costs and maximize, 
     among other benefits, uniformity, completeness, simplicity, 
     and efficiency;
       (3) submit to the Committee on Small Business and 
     Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the Committee on Small 
     Business of the House of Representatives a report regarding 
     any application to be designated as a HUBZone small business 
     concern or for recertification for which the Administrator 
     has not made a determination as of the date that is 60 days 
     after the date on which the application was submitted or 
     initiated, which shall include a plan and timetable for 
     ensuring the timely processing of the applications; and
       (4) develop measures and implement plans to assess the 
     effectiveness of the HUBZone program that--
       (A) require the identification of a baseline point in time 
     to allow the assessment of economic development under the 
     HUBZone program, including creating additional jobs; and
       (B) take into account--
       (i) the economic characteristics of the HUBZone; and
       (ii) contracts being counted under multiple socioeconomic 
     subcategories.

     SEC. 5. EMPLOYMENT PERCENTAGE.

       Section 3(p) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(p)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) Employment percentage during interim period.--
       ``(i) Definition.--In this subparagraph, the term `interim 
     period' means the period beginning on the date on which the 
     Administrator determines that a HUBZone small business 
     concern is qualified under subparagraph (A) and ending on the 
     day before the date on which a contract under the HUBZone 
     program for which the HUBZone small business concern submits 
     a bid is awarded.
       ``(ii) Interim period.--During the interim period, the 
     Administrator may not determine that the HUBZone small 
     business is not qualified under subparagraph (A) based on a 
     failure to meet the applicable employment percentage under 
     subparagraph (A)(i)(I), unless the HUBZone small business 
     concern--

       ``(I) has not attempted to maintain the applicable 
     employment percentage under subparagraph (A)(i)(I); or
       ``(II) does not meet the applicable employment percentage--

       ``(aa) on the date on which the HUBZone small business 
     concern submits a bid for a contract under the HUBZone 
     program; or
       ``(bb) on the date on which the HUBZone small business 
     concern is awarded a contract under the HUBZone program.''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Hubzone program.--The term `HUBZone program' means 
     the program established under section 31.
       ``(9) Hubzone map.--The term `HUBZone map' means the map 
     used by the Administration to identify HUBZones.''.

     SEC. 6. REDESIGNATED AREAS.

       Section 3(p)(4)(C)(i) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     632(p)(4)(C)(i)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(i) 3 years after the first date on which the 
     Administrator publishes a HUBZone map that is based on the 
     results from the 2010 decennial census; or''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Ensign):
  S. 3021. A bill to amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act 
of 1978 to authorize the Secretary of Energy to promulgate regulations 
to allow electric utilities to use renewable energy to comply with any 
Federal renewable electricity standard, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Support 
Renewable Energy Act of 2010 with my colleague, Senator Ensign. This 
bill would modify the Renewable Electricity Standard currently drafted 
in the American Clean Energy Leadership Act to ensure that all forms of 
renewable energy qualify.
  I am pleased that the Senate is again considering the implementation 
of a Renewable Electricity Standard that will encourage the development 
and deployment of new and existing renewable energy technologies. 
However, as the proposed Renewable Electricity Standard is currently 
drafted, only electricity-producing renewable technologies would 
qualify. This would exclude direct use renewable energy technologies 
that displace the need for electricity, rather than produce 
electricity.
  Our legislation would modify the definition of renewable energy as it 
applies to the draft Renewable Electricity Standard to include 
customer-sited renewable energy equipment. Specific examples of these 
direct use technologies are solar water heating, solar space heating 
and cooling, solar daylight and light-pipe technology, biogas, and 
ground source geothermal heat pumps. These technologies can be used in 
homes and businesses to provide light, heating, and cooling directly--
without the need for electricity from the grid. This legislation will 
allow utilities to generate renewable energy credits equal to the 
electricity or thermal energy displaced by direct use renewable energy 
technologies in order to meet a Renewable Electricity Standard.
  In addition to the reduced stress on our overburdened electricity 
transmission grid, the incentivized production and installation of 
these renewable technologies would spur the growth of green, 
sustainable jobs. One example of the potential for job creation was 
provided to me by Orion Energy Systems in my home State of Wisconsin. 
Orion manufactures light-pipes, which captures natural light on a roof 
and transfers that light through a pipe to a ceiling, where it is 
diffused to light a room, like a traditional light bulb. Because light 
pipes uses solar energy directly to produce light, rather than generate 
electricity, this innovative technology would not qualify as renewable 
energy under the draft Renewable Electricity Standard.
  Orion has already retrofitted approximately 5,000 facilities with 
improved lighting technology nationwide. With about 400 lighting 
fixtures on average, if these same facilities decided to upgrade to the 
light-pipe technology it would take between 6 million and 10 million 
man-hours to install. These would be jobs for roofers and carpenters at 
a time when the construction industry is badly in need of work.
  Direct use renewable energy technologies have significant 
environmental benefits. The energy savings from retrofitting these 
facilities with the light-pipe would amount to a savings of between 915 
and 1,934 gigawatts of electricity per year, which amounts to the 
energy equivalent of 343 to 725 million tons of coal that would not 
have to be burned, avoiding the release of between 0.6 and 1.28 million 
tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere. In addition, the 
users of this technology will save money on their electric bill, which 
could then be used for other things, like hiring new employees or 
increasing salaries.
  This is just one company and one of the many technologies that would 
qualify for the expanded Renewable Electricity Standard under our 
legislation. This is clearly a win-win-win situation for jobs, the 
facilities that install the technologies and save on energy costs, and 
for the environment.
  Direct use renewable energy technology is cost-effective, can be 
deployed locally, requires no new transmission infrastructure, and can 
be utilized in areas throughout the country that cannot sustain a 
commercial-scale power generation facility from other renewable energy 
sources. Furthermore, it will create much needed American jobs in both 
manufacturing and construction. I encourage my colleagues to support 
the Support Renewable Energy Act of 2010.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Durbin, 
        Mr. Bayh, Mr. Graham, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Thune, Mr. Casey, 
        Mr. Cornyn, Ms. Collins, Mr. Kaufman, Mr. Vitter, Mr. 
        Brownback, and Mr. Levin):
  S. 3022. A bill to impose sanctions on persons who are complicit in 
human rights abuses committed against citizens of Iran or their family 
members after the June 12, 2009, elections in Iran, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, February 11, 2010, was the 31st 
anniversary of the Islamic Republic of Iran. For most Iranians, the 
Islamic Republic is the only government they have ever known, and 
unfortunately, it is a record that many would rather forget--

[[Page S704]]

31 years of economic potential lost and the resources of a great and 
proud nation stolen by a corrupt ruling elite; 31 years of a regime 
that puts its own selfish interests and those of foreign terrorist 
groups ahead of the needs of the Iranian people; 31 years of justice 
denied, freedom curtailed, and dignity trampled.
  In recent months, the world has watched in awe as hundreds of 
thousands of Iranians have said ``enough,'' and demanded better for 
themselves. They have taken to the streets and the Internet, risking 
the violent reprisal of a regime without conscience, in order to insist 
on their universal human rights. In television news clips and YouTube 
videos, in Twitter updates and countless online exchanges, the world 
has seen the naked oppression of the Iranian regime and its masked 
agents.
  We have watched as peaceful Iranian demonstrators for human rights 
have been beaten, and shot--even murdered--in the streets of cities 
across Iran.
  We have watched as Iranian men and women--many not more than young 
boys and girls--have been rounded up in their homes and dormitories, 
and hauled away unlawfully to face torture and other abuses in the 
darkest corners of the country, where the eyes of the international 
community struggle to see.
  Just a few months ago, we watched as a young woman named Neda was 
shot in broad daylight by agents of the Iranian government. And as that 
young woman bled to death in the street, it became clear to me and many 
others that this was the beginning of the end of the Islamic Republic. 
After 31 years, that day cannot come soon enough, but how and when it 
does is up to the Iranian people.
  This struggle continues in Iran. On February 11, many Iranians took 
to the streets again to demonstrate peacefully for freedom and justice. 
Again, many were beaten. Again, many were detained unlawfully. Again, 
many were no doubt tortured--and worse. The world has watched these 
abuses long enough. Now the world must act. It is long past time for 
democratic, law-abiding nations to stand up together, to speak with one 
voice, and to show these courageous Iranian human rights advocates that 
the free world is on their side. The recent statement between the U.S. 
and the European Union supporting human rights in Iran is a welcome 
development, and I hope to see more and more such joint actions.
  It is also long past time for the U.N. Security Council to impose the 
crippling sanctions on the Iranian government that have been promised 
for so long. As that negotiation drags on, individual countries should 
not refrain from taking their own individual actions to impose pressure 
on the rulers of Iran for failing to abide by their own international 
agreements, both security agreements and human rights agreements. In 
that vein, I was pleased to see the White House recently announce a new 
set of sanctions against four Iranian entities and one individual 
active in Iran's nuclear program. I hope there is a lot more where that 
came from.
  I do not wish, however, to confine our sanctions effort only to those 
persons in Iran who threaten our security and that of our allies, 
either through their support for terrorism or Iran's weapons programs. 
I also want to bring the full force of America's economic power to bear 
against those in Iran who threaten that country's peaceful human rights 
and democracy activists. That is why, just a few weeks ago, I sought to 
introduce an amendment to the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, 
Accountability, and Divestment Act, which would impose targeted 
sanctions on persons in Iran who violate the human rights of their 
fellow citizens.
  Building on that earlier effort, today I am introducing, together 
with my good friend and colleague Senator Joe Lieberman, the Iran Human 
Rights Sanctions Act, which is co-sponsored by a broad bipartisan group 
of U.S. Senators.
  This bill has two parts.
  First, it would require the President to compile a public list of 
individuals in Iran who, starting with the presidential election last 
June, are complicit in human rights violations against Iranian citizens 
and their families, no matter where in the world those abuses occur. I 
want to stress: This would be a public list, posted for all the world 
to see on the websites of the State and Treasury Departments. We will 
shine a light on the names of Iran's human rights abusers, and we will 
make them famous for their crimes.
  Second, this bill would then ban these Iranian individuals from 
receiving U.S. visas, and impose on them the full battery of sanctions 
under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. That means, 
freezing any assets and blocking any property they hold under U.S. 
jurisdiction, and ending all their financial transactions with U.S. 
banks and other entities. If passed into law, this would be the first 
time the U.S. Government has ever imposed punitive measures against 
persons in Iran because of their human rights violations.
  In short, under this bill, Iranian human rights abusers would be 
completely cut off from the global reach of the U.S. financial system, 
and that would send a powerful signal to every country, company, and 
bank in the world that they should think twice about doing business 
with the oppressors of the Iranian people.
  Over the past year, the President has made every effort to extend a 
hand to the Iranian government--to seek to overcome 31 years of painful 
history, and to search for common ground on matters of common interest. 
Unfortunately, the President's generosity has been met defiantly, again 
and again, with the clenched fist of Iran's rulers--a fist that is 
increasingly stained with the blood of the Iranian people. It should 
now be clear that the Iranian regime has no desire to meet its 
international responsibilities and every desire to use all the tools of 
violence and repression at its disposal to crush the peaceful 
aspirations of Iran's citizens.
  Faced with this disturbing reality, America must lead an 
international effort to support the human rights of the Iranian people, 
and to put that effort at the center of our policy toward Iran. We must 
encourage our international partners, especially our European allies, 
to do the same, and to impose their own targeted sanctions on Iran's 
human rights abusers. This is not about picking winners in an internal 
Iranian matter. It is about standing up for the universal values we 
hold dear, and championing the cause of all who seek to secure those 
values for themselves.
  The Iran Human Rights Sanctions Act is an important start of this 
effort, and I encourage my colleagues in Congress to move quickly and 
pass it into law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Pryor):
  S. 3024. A bill to ensure that the creation of jobs by small 
businesses is considered during the Federal legislative and rulemaking 
process, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security 
and Governmental Affairs.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleague Senator 
Pryor, to introduce the Job Impact Analysis Act of 2010, a bipartisan 
measure that will help ensure that the Federal Government--both 
Congress and agencies of the executive branch--fully considers small 
business job creation in the bills we pass here in Congress and in the 
rules and regulations that agencies promulgate.
  As the former Chair and now Ranking member of the Senate Committee on 
Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I believe there is no more urgent 
imperative than job creation in our country. With 25,000 additional 
unemployed in my State of Maine alone, since the recession began in 
2007, and twenty-three million Americans unemployed or underemployed, 
it is more paramount than ever that everything we do must focus like a 
laser on jumpstarting our economy. Furthermore, the fastest route to 
recovery runs through Main Street small businesses, which over the past 
15 years have generated 64 percent of all net new jobs in this country, 
and so we must foster an entrepreneurial environment where small 
businesses can take risks and invest in the future to preserve and 
create more jobs.
  The legislation we are introducing today would help make sure that in 
whatever measure we are debating--whether it be health care reform, a 
jobs

[[Page S705]]

bill, or financial services overhaul--that we strive to discern whether 
it contributes to creating a climate in which our smallest enterprises 
and entrepreneurs cannot only survive, but thrive. It would amend the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to direct the 
Congressional Budget Office, CBO, to the extent practicable, to 
estimate in a ``job impact statement'' the potential job creation or 
job loss attributable to each bill or joint resolution reported by a 
congressional committee that exceeds $5 billion in costs. For years we 
have had environmental impact statements, and so in 2010, I do not 
think it is too much to ask, where are the job impact statements?
  As our Nation continues to reel from the worst set of economic 
circumstances since World War II, Congress must focus on job creation, 
and we must begin by ensuring all economic factors--including potential 
small business job creation and job loss--are fully considered in 
debate of every bill that we consider in the Senate. It is clear that 
Washington has ignored the will of the people for far too long. At a 
time when the Nation is struggling to dig out of the deepest recession 
since the Great Depression, we must ensure that our country once again 
brings to bear the kind of ingenuity, creativity, and innovation that 
made America and our free-market economy the greatest and most powerful 
on earth. I believe that a job impact statement attached to every bill 
with costs over $5 billion would provide a powerful incentive for 
Congress to focus its efforts where they belong and help Congress focus 
on what matters to the American people these days--job creation.
  In addition, onerous regulations are crushing the entrepreneurial 
spirit of America's small businesses. In 2009, there were close to 
70,000 pages in the Federal Register, which chronicles new regulations 
by the government. Furthermore, according to research by the Small 
Business Administration's, SBA's, Office of Advocacy, the annual cost 
of Federal regulations totals $1.1 trillion, and small firms bear a 
disproportionate burden, paying approximately 45 percent more per 
employee in annual regulatory compliance costs than larger firms. Small 
firms also spend twice as much on tax compliance than their larger 
counterparts.
  So our legislation includes several targeted regulatory reforms that 
would help to ensure that Federal agencies fully consider small 
business implications during the rulemaking process. The reforms in our 
bill are based on what we introduced in the Regulatory Flexibility 
Reform Act in the 109th Congress and the Independent Office of Advocacy 
and Small Business Regulatory Reform Act of 2008, from the 110th 
Congress. Most of these reforms have been supported by a host of small 
business stakeholders, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the 
National Federation of Independent Business, the National Small 
Business Association, the National Association for the Self-Employed, 
Women Impacting Public Policy, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, 
Small Business Legislative Council, and the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of 
Commerce.
  Our measure would amend the Regulatory Flexibility Act, RFA, the 
seminal legislation, enacted in 1980, which requires agencies to 
consider the impact of their regulatory proposals on small businesses, 
to analyze effective alternatives that minimize small business impact, 
and to make their analyses available for public comment. The RFA 
requires federal agencies to conduct a small business analysis any time 
a proposed Federal rule would impose a ``significant impact on a 
substantial number of small businesses.'' Unfortunately, there remain a 
number of loopholes in the RFA that undermine its effectiveness in 
reducing these regulatory burdens.
  Our legislation would close loopholes in this process, while also 
ensuring that Federal agencies consider potential job creation and job 
loss during the rulemaking process. In far too many cases, Federal 
agencies promulgate rules and regulations without adequately addressing 
the economic impact on small businesses. Under our legislation agencies 
must consider the ``indirect'' effects of an ``economic impact.'' Rules 
with indirect effects are currently exempt from RFA coverage according 
to well-established case law. This has serious consequences for small 
businesses. It means that Federal agencies can avoid the various 
analyses required under the RFA by either requiring the states to 
regulate small entities or regulating an industry so rigorously that it 
has a negative trickle down impact on other industries. For example, 
rules can regulate a handful of large manufacturers in the same 
industry. Yet, a foreseeable, indirect effect of these rules--not 
presently considered under RFA analyses--is that small distributors 
would no longer have the right to sell the product produced by the 
larger manufacturers.
  The RFA has already saved billions of dollars for small businesses by 
forcing government regulators to be sensitive to their direct impact on 
small firms. If billions of dollars can be filtered out of direct 
regulatory mandates upon small business while improving workplace 
safety and environmental conditions, even more can be saved by 
filtering out unnecessary or duplicative costs to those small 
businesses indirectly impacted by regulation. Those dollars would be 
better spent by the businesses hiring more employees or providing 
existing employees with greater benefits, and would also help to 
prevent unintended job loss through regulatory requirements.
  Our legislation also requires Federal agencies to consider comments 
provided by the SBA's Office of Advocacy, which has historically not 
received the public attention it deserves. In case after case, it has 
been the last, best hope for small businesses faced with burdensome, 
duplicative and nonsensical Federal regulations. Our legislation would 
also amend the RFA to include a provision for agencies to specifically 
respond to comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy. Codifying 
this necessary change would ensure that agencies give the proper 
deference to the Office of Advocacy, and to the comments and concerns 
of small businesses. This is a straightforward and simple reform that 
could have major benefits.
  In addition, our measure would also clarify the circumstances for 
when ``periodic review'' under the RFA is required. Many questions have 
arisen as a result of ambiguous language in the RFA that has caused 
some confusion as to what rules require periodic review, and when. 
Under our bill, periodic review, with a focus on potential job creation 
or job loss, would be required for all final rules that would impose a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses. 
Agencies would be required to review all 10-year-old rules every year 
to avoid confusion over which rules to review. In addition, agencies 
would be required to review rules every 10 years and not just the first 
10 years.
  Finally, our bill would ensure the statutory and budgetary 
independence of the SBA Office of Advocacy, a key office that is 
intended to be the independent voice for small business within the 
Federal Government. It is charged with the duty of representing the 
views and interests of small businesses before other Federal agencies, 
and developing proposals for changing government policies to help small 
businesses. These roles can sometimes come into conflict.
  Our bill would resolve such conflicts in favor of the small 
businesses that rely on the Chief Counsel and the Office of Advocacy to 
be a fully independent advocate within the Executive Branch. The bill 
would help to reinforce a clear mandate that the Office of Advocacy 
must fight on behalf of small businesses, regardless of the position 
taken on critical issues by the administration. Funding for the Office 
of Advocacy currently comes from the ``Salaries and Expense Account'' 
of the SBA's budget. Staffing is allocated by the SBA Administrator to 
the Office of Advocacy from the overall staff allocation for the 
Agency. In 1990, there were 70 full-time employees working on behalf of 
small businesses in the Office of Advocacy. Today, there are fewer than 
50. The independence and effectiveness of the Office is potentially 
diminished when the Office of Advocacy staff is reduced, at the 
discretion of the administrator.
  To address this problem, our legislation would build a firewall to 
minimize political intrusion into the management of day-to-day 
operations of the

[[Page S706]]

Office of Advocacy similar to the one that protects Inspectors General 
in other agencies. The bill would require the Federal budget to include 
a separate account for the Office of Advocacy drawn directly from the 
General Fund of the Treasury. No longer would its funds come from the 
general operating account of the SBA. This will free the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy from having to seek approval from the SBA Administrator to 
hire staff for the Office of Advocacy.
  Our bill would leave unchanged current law that allows the Chief 
Counsel to hire individuals critical to the mission of the Office of 
Advocacy without going through the normal competitive procedures 
directed by Federal law and the Office of Personnel Management. This 
long-standing special hiring authority, which is limited only to 
employees within the Office of Advocacy, is beneficial because it 
allows the Chief Counsel to hire quickly those persons who can best 
assist the Office in responding to changing issues and problems 
confronting small businesses.
  This non-controversial, bipartisan legislation is absolutely 
necessary. I urge my colleagues to support my bill so we can ensure 
that our Nation's small businesses and their employees are provided 
with much needed relief.
  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. 3024

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Job Impact 
     Analysis Act of 2010''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Job impact statement for reported bills and joint resolutions.
Sec. 4. Clarification and expansion of rules covered by the Regulatory 
              Flexibility Act.
Sec. 5. Requirements providing for more detailed analyses.
Sec. 6. Periodic review of rules.
Sec. 7. Office of Advocacy.
Sec. 8. Clerical amendments.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) A vibrant and growing small business sector is critical 
     to the recovery of the economy of the United States.
       (2) Regulations designed for application to large-scale 
     entities have been applied uniformly to small businesses and 
     other small entities, sometimes inhibiting the ability of 
     small entities to create new jobs.
       (3) Uniform Federal regulatory and reporting requirements 
     in many instances have imposed on small businesses and other 
     small entities unnecessary and disproportionately burdensome 
     demands, including legal, accounting, and consulting costs, 
     thereby threatening the viability of small entities and the 
     ability of small entities to compete and create new jobs in a 
     global marketplace.
       (4) Since 1980, Federal agencies have been required to 
     recognize and take account of the differences in the scale 
     and resources of regulated entities, but in many instances 
     have failed to do so.
       (5) In 2009, there were nearly 70,000 pages in the Federal 
     Register, and, according to research by the Office of 
     Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, the annual 
     cost of Federal regulations totals $1,100,000,000,000. Small 
     firms bear a disproportionate burden, paying approximately 45 
     percent, or $7,647, more per employee than larger firms in 
     annual regulatory compliance costs.
       (6) The Federal Government should fully consider the costs, 
     including indirect economic impacts and the potential for job 
     creation and job loss, of proposed rules.
       (7) It is the intention of Congress to amend chapter 6 of 
     title 5, United States Code, to ensure that all impacts, 
     including foreseeable indirect effects, of proposed and final 
     rules are considered by agencies during the rulemaking 
     process and that the agencies assess a full range of 
     alternatives that will limit adverse economic consequences, 
     enhance economic benefits, and fully address potential job 
     creation or job loss.
       (8) To the maximum extent practicable, the Director of the 
     Congressional Budget Office should, in certain estimates the 
     Director prepares with respect to bills or joint resolutions 
     reported by congressional committees, estimate the potential 
     job creation or job loss attributable to the bills or joint 
     resolutions.

     SEC. 3. JOB IMPACT STATEMENT FOR REPORTED BILLS AND JOINT 
                   RESOLUTIONS.

       Section 424 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
     Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658c) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) if the Director estimates that the total amount of 
     direct costs of all Federal intergovernmental mandates in the 
     bill or joint resolution will equal or exceed $5,000,000,000 
     (adjusted annually for inflation), to the extent practicable, 
     the potential job creation or job loss in State, local, and 
     tribal governments as a result of the mandates.''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) if the Director estimates that the total amount of 
     direct costs of all Federal private sector mandates in the 
     bill or joint resolution will equal or exceed $5,000,000,000 
     (adjusted annually for inflation), to the extent practicable, 
     the potential job creation or job loss in the private sector 
     as a result of the mandates.''.

     SEC. 4. CLARIFICATION AND EXPANSION OF RULES COVERED BY THE 
                   REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT.

       Section 601 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (7)(B), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon;
       (3) in paragraph (8)--
       (A) by striking ``Recordkeeping requirement.--The'' and 
     inserting ``the''; and
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     and''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) the term `economic impact' means, with respect to a 
     proposed or final rule--
       ``(A) any direct economic effect of the rule on small 
     entities; and
       ``(B) any indirect economic effect on small entities, 
     including potential job creation or job loss, that is 
     reasonably foreseeable and that results from the rule, 
     without regard to whether small entities are directly 
     regulated by the rule.''.

     SEC. 5. REQUIREMENTS PROVIDING FOR MORE DETAILED ANALYSES.

       (a) Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.--Section 603 
     of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Each initial regulatory flexibility analysis required 
     under this section shall contain a detailed statement--
       ``(1) describing the reasons why action by the agency is 
     being considered;
       ``(2) describing the objectives of, and legal basis for, 
     the proposed rule;
       ``(3) estimating the number and type of small entities to 
     which the proposed rule will apply;
       ``(4) describing the projected reporting, recordkeeping, 
     and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, 
     including an estimate of the classes of small entities which 
     will be subject to the requirement and the type of 
     professional skills necessary for preparation of the report 
     and record;
       ``(5) describing all relevant Federal rules which may 
     duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule, or 
     the reasons why such a description could not be provided; and
       ``(6) estimating the additional cumulative economic impact 
     of the proposed rule on small entities, including job 
     creation and employment by small entities, beyond that 
     already imposed on the class of small entities by the agency, 
     or the reasons why such an estimate is not available.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) An agency shall notify the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 
     of the Small Business Administration of any draft rules that 
     may have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
     number of small entities either--
       ``(1) when the agency submits a draft rule to the Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of 
     Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866, if that 
     order requires such submission; or
       ``(2) if no submission to the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs is so required, at a reasonable time prior 
     to publication of the rule by the agency.''.
       (b) Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.--
       (1) In general.--Section 604(a) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``detailed'' before ``description'' each 
     place it appears;
       (B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``succinct'';
       (C) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``summary'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``statement''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``(or certification of the proposed rule 
     under section 605(b))'' after ``initial regulatory 
     flexibility analysis'';
       (D) in paragraph (3), by striking ``an explanation'' and 
     inserting ``a detailed explanation'';
       (E) by redesignating paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) as 
     paragraphs (4), (5), and (6), respectively; and
       (F) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) the response of the agency to any comments filed by 
     the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
     Administration in response to the proposed rule, and a 
     detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rule in 
     the final rule as a result of the comments;''.
       (2) Publication of analysis on web site, etc.--Section 
     604(b) of title 5, United States Code, is amended to read as 
     follows:

[[Page S707]]

       ``(b) The agency shall--
       ``(1) make copies of the final regulatory flexibility 
     analysis available to the public, including by publishing the 
     entire final regulatory flexibility analysis on the Web site 
     of the agency; and
       ``(2) publish in the Federal Register the final regulatory 
     flexibility analysis, or a summary of the analysis that 
     includes the telephone number, mailing address, and address 
     of the Web site where the complete final regulatory 
     flexibility analysis may be obtained.''.
       (c) Cross-References to Other Analyses.--Section 605(a) of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) A Federal agency shall be deemed to have satisfied a 
     requirement regarding the content of a regulatory flexibility 
     agenda or regulatory flexibility analysis under section 602, 
     603, or 604, if the Federal agency provides in the agenda or 
     regulatory flexibility analysis a cross-reference to the 
     specific portion of an agenda or analysis that is required by 
     another law and that satisfies the requirement.''.
       (d) Certifications.--The second sentence of section 605(b) 
     of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``statement providing the factual'' and inserting ``detailed 
     statement providing the factual and legal''.
       (e) Quantification Requirements.--Section 607 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 607. Quantification requirements

       ``In complying with sections 603 and 604, an agency shall 
     provide--
       ``(1) a quantifiable or numerical description of the 
     effects of the proposed or final rule, including an estimate 
     of the potential for job creation or job loss, and 
     alternatives to the proposed or final rule; or
       ``(2) a more general descriptive statement and a detailed 
     statement explaining why quantification is not practicable or 
     reliable.''.

     SEC. 6. PERIODIC REVIEW OF RULES.

       Section 610 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 610. Periodic review of rules

       ``(a) Not later than 180 days after the enactment of the 
     Job Impact Analysis Act of 2010, each agency shall publish in 
     the Federal Register and place on its Web site a plan for the 
     periodic review of rules issued by the agency that the head 
     of the agency determines has a significant economic impact on 
     a substantial number of small entities. Such determination 
     shall be made without regard to whether the agency performed 
     an analysis under section 604. The purpose of the review 
     shall be to determine whether such rules should be continued 
     without change, or should be amended or rescinded, consistent 
     with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, to 
     minimize any significant adverse economic impacts on a 
     substantial number of small entities (including an estimate 
     of any adverse impacts on job creation and employment by 
     small entities). Such plan may be amended by the agency at 
     any time by publishing the revision in the Federal Register 
     and subsequently placing the amended plan on the Web site of 
     the agency.
       ``(b) The plan shall provide for the review of all such 
     agency rules existing on the date of the enactment of the Job 
     Impact Analysis Act of 2010 within 10 years after the date of 
     publication of the plan in the Federal Register and every 10 
     years thereafter and for review of rules adopted after the 
     date of enactment of the Job Impact Analysis Act of 2010 
     within 10 years after the publication of the final rule in 
     the Federal Register and every 10 years thereafter. If the 
     head of the agency determines that completion of the review 
     of existing rules is not feasible by the established date, 
     the head of the agency shall so certify in a statement 
     published in the Federal Register and may extend the review 
     for not longer than 2 years after publication of notice of 
     extension in the Federal Register. Such certification and 
     notice shall be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy and 
     Congress.
       ``(c) Each agency shall annually submit a report regarding 
     the results of its review pursuant to such plan to Congress 
     and, in the case of agencies other than independent 
     regulatory agencies (as defined in section 3502(5) of title 
     44, United States Code), to the Administrator of the Office 
     of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of 
     Management and Budget. Such report shall include the 
     identification of any rule with respect to which the head of 
     the agency made a determination of infeasibility under 
     paragraph (5) or (6) of subsection (d) and a detailed 
     explanation of the reasons for such determination.
       ``(d) In reviewing rules under such plan, the agency shall 
     consider--
       ``(1) the continued need for the rule;
       ``(2) the nature of complaints received by the agency from 
     small entities concerning the rule;
       ``(3) comments by the Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and 
     the Chief Counsel for Advocacy;
       ``(4) the complexity of the rule;
       ``(5) the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or 
     conflicts with other Federal rules and, unless the head of 
     the agency determines it to be infeasible, State and local 
     rules;
       ``(6) the contribution of the rule to the cumulative 
     economic impact of all Federal rules on the class of small 
     entities affected by the rule, unless the head of the agency 
     determines that such calculations cannot be made and reports 
     that determination in the annual report required under 
     subsection (c);
       ``(7) the length of time since the rule has been evaluated, 
     or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or 
     other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule; 
     and
       ``(8) the current impact of the rule, including--
       ``(A) the estimated number of small entities to which the 
     rule will apply;
       ``(B) the estimated number of small business jobs that will 
     be lost or created by the rule; and
       ``(C) the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other 
     compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including--
       ``(i) an estimate of the classes of small entities that 
     will be subject to the requirement; and
       ``(ii) the type of professional skills necessary for 
     preparation of the report or record.
       ``(e) The agency shall publish in the Federal Register and 
     on the Web site of the agency a list of rules to be reviewed 
     pursuant to such plan. Such publication shall include a brief 
     description of the rule, the reason why the agency determined 
     that it has a significant economic impact on a substantial 
     number of small entities (without regard to whether the 
     agency had prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis 
     for the rule), and request comments from the public, the 
     Chief Counsel for Advocacy, and the Regulatory Enforcement 
     Ombudsman concerning the enforcement of the rule.''.

     SEC. 7. OFFICE OF ADVOCACY.

       (a) In General.--Section 203 of Public Law 94-305 (15 
     U.S.C. 634c) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) carry out the responsibilities of the Office of 
     Advocacy under chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code.''.
       (b) Budgetary Line Item and Authorization of 
     Appropriations.--Title II of Public Law 94-305 (15 U.S.C. 
     634a et seq.) is amended by striking section 207 and 
     inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 207. BUDGETARY LINE ITEM AND AUTHORIZATION OF 
                   APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) Appropriation Requests.--Each budget of the United 
     States Government submitted by the President under section 
     1105 of title 31, United States Code, shall include a 
     separate statement of the amount of appropriations requested 
     for the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business 
     Administration, which shall be designated in a separate 
     account in the General Fund of the Treasury.
       ``(b) Administrative Operations.--The Administrator of the 
     Small Business Administration shall provide the Office of 
     Advocacy with appropriate and adequate office space at 
     central and field office locations, together with such 
     equipment, operating budget, and communications facilities 
     and services as may be necessary, and shall provide necessary 
     maintenance services for such offices and the equipment and 
     facilities located in such offices.
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to 
     carry out this title. Any amount appropriated under this 
     subsection shall remain available, without fiscal year 
     limitation, until expended.''.

     SEC. 8. CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Heading.--The heading of section 605 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 605. Incorporations by reference and certifications''.

       (b) Table of Sections.--The table of sections for chapter 6 
     of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking the item relating to section 605 and 
     inserting the following:

``605. Incorporations by reference and certifications.''; and
       (2) by striking the item relating to section 607 and 
     inserting the following:

``607. Quantification requirements.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MERKLEY:
  S. 3025. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
provide assistance for programs and activities to protect and restore 
the water quality of the Columbia River Basin, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. MERKLEY. 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. 3025

       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 ``Columbia River Restoration 
     Act of 2010''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Columbia River is the largest river in the Pacific 
     Northwest and the fourth largest river in the United States 
     by volume. The river is 1,243 miles long, and its drainage 
     basin includes 259,000 square miles, extending into 7 States 
     and British Columbia, Canada, and including all or part of 5 
     national parks,

[[Page S708]]

     the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, and the Hells 
     Canyon National Recreation Area.
       (2) The Columbia River Basin and its tributaries provide 
     significant ecological and economic benefits to the Pacific 
     Northwest and the entire United States. Traditionally, the 
     Columbia River Basin and its tributaries were the largest 
     salmon producing river system in the world, with annual 
     returns peaking at as many as 30 million fish. The Columbia 
     River drainage basin includes more than 6 million acres of 
     irrigated agricultural land, and its 14 hydroelectric dams, 
     combined with additional dams on its tributaries, produce 
     more hydroelectric power than any other North American river.
       (3) The Lower Columbia River Estuary stretches 146 miles 
     from the Bonneville Dam to the mouth of the Pacific Ocean, 
     and much of this area is degraded. Polychlorinated biphenyls 
     (PCBs) in salmon tissue and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 
     (PAHs) in salmon prey exceed estimated thresholds for delayed 
     mortality, increased disease susceptibility, and reduced 
     growth. Legacy contaminants (DDT and PCBs) banned in the 
     1970s are still detected in river water, sediments, and 
     juvenile Chinook salmon. Several pesticides have been 
     detected, including atrazine and simazine, which can affect 
     salmon behavior or act as hormone disruptors. Emerging 
     contaminants, such as hormone disruptors from pharmaceutical 
     and personal care products, have been found in river water 
     and juvenile male salmon. These contaminants may impair 
     salmon growth, health, and reproduction.
       (4) The Middle and Upper Columbia River Basin includes 
     1,050 miles of the mainstem Columbia River upstream of the 
     Bonneville Dam, including the 1,040 miles of its largest 
     tributary, the Snake River, and all of the tributaries to 
     both rivers. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) 
     Columbia River Basin Fish Contaminant Survey detected the 
     presence of 92 priority pollutants, including PCBs, dioxins, 
     furans, arsenic, mercury, and DDE (a breakdown product of 
     DDT), in fish that are consumed by the Confederated Tribes of 
     the Warm Springs, the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the 
     Yakama Nation, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian 
     Reservation, and the Nez Perce Tribe, as well as by other 
     people consuming fish throughout the Columbia River Basin. A 
     fish consumption survey by the Columbia River Intertribal 
     Fish Commission showed that tribal members were eating 6 to 
     11 times more fish than EPA's estimated national average. The 
     nuclear and toxic contamination at the Hanford Nuclear 
     Reservation presents an ongoing risk of contamination in the 
     Middle Columbia Basin. Sampling of sediments by the EPA in 
     2004 documented widespread presence of toxic flame retardants 
     known as polyrominated diphenyl ethers.
       (5) Contamination of the Middle and Upper Columbia River 
     Basin has a direct impact on water quality and habitat 
     quality in the Lower Columbia River Estuary. Investments in 
     habitat restoration and toxics reduction in the Middle and 
     Upper Columbia River Basin can have significant benefits for 
     fish and wildlife throughout the entire basin.
       (6) Together with the Governors of Oregon and Washington, 
     the EPA created the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership 
     (Estuary Partnership) in 1995 to provide regional 
     coordination to focus on the lower river, to advance the 
     science of the ecosystem, and to deliver environmental 
     results. The Estuary Partnership was formed within the 
     National Estuary Program and provides a structure for 
     organization and collaboration to implement Federal 
     priorities. The Estuary Partnership includes all key Federal 
     agencies as part of its management and governing structure, 
     including the EPA, the United States Geological Survey 
     (USGS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
     (NOAA), the Army Corps of Engineers, the Forest Service, and 
     tribal, State, and local governments.
       (7) The Columbia River Basin was designated by the EPA as 
     an ``Estuary of National Significance'' in 1995 and a ``Large 
     Aquatic Ecosystem'' in 2006.
       (8) The Estuary Partnership has developed an unparalleled 
     2-State, public and private partnership, including 
     unprecedented collaborative efforts among key Federal 
     partners, including the EPA, the NOAA, the USGS, and the Army 
     Corps of Engineers to advance Federal goals, and the Estuary 
     Partnership and its partners have gathered scientific 
     information and compiled data, and have made significant 
     gains in habitat protection and environmental education.
       (9) Despite these advances, further degradation exists and 
     contaminants persist in the Columbia River Basin and are 
     impairing the health of fish, wildlife, and humans. Degraded 
     conditions in the river exacerbate the challenges already 
     faced by the 13 species of salmon and steelhead in the 
     Columbia River Basin listed as threatened or endangered under 
     the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
       (10) The ``Estuary Partnership Comprehensive Conservation 
     and Management Plan'' (1999), the ``Northwest Power and 
     Conservation Council Lower Columbia Province Plan'' (2004, 
     amended 2008), the draft ``NOAA Columbia River Estuary 
     Recovery Module for Salmon and Steelhead'' (2010), the States 
     of Oregon, Idaho, and Washington Recovery Plans, the 
     ``Biological Opinion for the Federal Columbia River Power 
     System (FCRPS)'' (2000, 2004, 2008), and the ``EPA Columbia 
     Basin State of the River Report for Toxics'' (2009) 
     consistently identify habitat loss and toxic contamination as 
     threats to fish and wildlife.

     SEC. 3. COLUMBIA RIVER.

       Title I of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 123. COLUMBIA RIVER.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) Action plan.--The term `Action Plan' means the 
     `Columbia River Basin Toxics Reduction Action Plan' developed 
     by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Columbia River 
     Toxics Reduction Working Group in 2010, including any 
     amendments thereto.
       ``(2) Comprehensive plan.--The term `Comprehensive Plan' 
     means the `Estuary Partnership Comprehensive Conservation and 
     Management Plan' adopted by the Environmental Protection 
     Agency and the Governors of Oregon and Washington on October 
     20, 1999, under section 320, including any amendments 
     thereto.
       ``(3) Estuary partnership.--The term `Estuary Partnership' 
     means the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership, an entity 
     created by the States of Oregon and Washington and the 
     Environmental Protection Agency under section 320.
       ``(4) Lower columbia river and estuary.--The term `Lower 
     Columbia River and Estuary' means the region consisting of 
     the lower 146 miles of the Columbia River Basin from the 
     Bonneville Dam to the Pacific Ocean.
       ``(5) Middle and upper columbia river basin.--The term 
     `Middle and Upper Columbia River Basin' means the region 
     consisting of the United States portion of the Columbia River 
     Basin above Bonneville Dam, including the Snake River (and 
     its tributaries) and other tributaries of the Columbia River.
       ``(6) Team leader.--The term `Team Leader' means the Team 
     Leader appointed under subsection (b).
       ``(b) Program Team.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Administrator shall establish in 
     the Environmental Protection Agency a Columbia River Program 
     Team. The Team shall be located within the Oregon Operations 
     Office for Region 10 of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       ``(2) Appointment of team leader.--The Administrator shall 
     appoint a Team Leader, who, by reason of management 
     experience and technical expertise relating to the Columbia 
     River Basin, shall be highly qualified to support the 
     development and implementation of projects, programs, and 
     studies necessary to implement the Action Plan.
       ``(3) Delegation of authority; staffing.--The Administrator 
     shall delegate to the Team Leader such authority and provide 
     such additional staff as may be necessary to carry out this 
     section.
       ``(c) Duties.--
       ``(1) In general.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Administrator, acting through the Team Leader, shall--
       ``(A) assist and support the implementation of the Action 
     Plan and the Comprehensive Plan;
       ``(B) coordinate the implementation of the Action Plan and 
     the Comprehensive Plan, and the development of any updates to 
     those plans, with programs and projects in the Middle and 
     Upper Columbia River Basin;
       ``(C) make such other updates to the Action Plan and the 
     Comprehensive Plan as the Administrator, in consultation with 
     appropriate Federal agencies, the States of Oregon, 
     Washington, and Idaho, tribal governments, local governments, 
     and other public and private interests in the Columbia River 
     Basin, considers appropriate;
       ``(D) provide funding and make grants for implementation of 
     the Action Plan and the Comprehensive Plan and projects, 
     programs, and studies consistent with the priorities of the 
     Action Plan and the Comprehensive Plan;
       ``(E) promote innovative methodologies and technologies 
     that are cost effective and consistent with the identified 
     goals and objectives of the Action Plan and the Comprehensive 
     Plan and the permitting processes of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency;
       ``(F) coordinate the major functions of the Federal 
     Government related to the implementation of the Action Plan 
     and the Comprehensive Plan, including projects, programs, and 
     studies for--
       ``(i) water quality improvements;
       ``(ii) toxics reduction and monitoring;
       ``(iii) wetland, riverine, and estuary restoration and 
     protection;
       ``(iv) nearshore and endangered species recovery; and
       ``(v) stewardship and environmental education;
       ``(G) coordinate the research and planning projects 
     authorized under this section with Federal agencies, State 
     agencies, tribal governments, universities, and the Estuary 
     Partnership, including conducting or commissioning studies 
     considered necessary for strengthened implementation of the 
     Action Plan and the Comprehensive Plan;
       ``(H) track progress toward meeting the identified goals 
     and objectives of the Action Plan and the Comprehensive Plan 
     by--
       ``(i) implementing and supporting a project, program, and 
     monitoring system consistent with performance-based ecosystem 
     standards and management; and
       ``(ii) coordinating, managing, and reporting environmental 
     data related to the Action Plan and the Comprehensive Plan in 
     a manner consistent with methodologies utilized

[[Page S709]]

     by the Estuary Partnership, including making such data and 
     reports on such data available to the public, including on 
     the Internet, in a timely fashion; and
       ``(I) collect and make available to the public, including 
     on the Internet, publications and other forms of information 
     relating to the environmental quality of the Lower Columbia 
     River and Estuary.
       ``(2) Implementation methods.--The Administrator, acting 
     through the Team Leader, may enter into interagency 
     agreements, make intergovernmental personnel appointments, 
     provide funding, make grants, and utilize other available 
     methods in carrying out the duties under this subsection.
       ``(d) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     enactment of this section, and biennially thereafter, the 
     Administrator shall submit to Congress a report that--
       ``(1) summarizes the progress made in implementing the 
     Action Plan and the Comprehensive Plan and the progress made 
     toward achieving the identified goals and objectives 
     described in such plans;
       ``(2) summarizes any modifications to the Action Plan and 
     the Comprehensive Plan made in the period immediately 
     preceding the report;
       ``(3) incorporates specific recommendations concerning the 
     implementation of the Action Plan and the Comprehensive Plan; 
     and
       ``(4) summarizes the roles and progress of each Federal 
     agency that has jurisdiction in the Columbia River Basin 
     toward meeting the identified goals and objectives of the 
     Action Plan and the Comprehensive Plan.
       ``(e) Implementation of Action Plan and Comprehensive 
     Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator, acting through the 
     Team Leader and in consultation with the Estuary Partnership, 
     shall carry out projects, programs, and studies to implement 
     the Action Plan and the Comprehensive Plan.
       ``(2) Priority projects, programs, and studies.--The 
     Administrator may give special emphasis to projects, 
     programs, and studies that are identified as priorities by 
     the Estuary Partnership in the Action Plan and the 
     Comprehensive Plan.
       ``(3) Grants.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator, acting through the 
     Team Leader, is authorized to make grants for projects, 
     programs, and studies to implement the Action Plan and the 
     Comprehensive Plan.
       ``(B) Allocations.--In making grants using funds 
     appropriated to carry out this paragraph for a fiscal year, 
     the Administrator, acting through the Team Leader, shall 
     use--
       ``(i) not less than 40 percent of the funds to make a 
     comprehensive grant to the Estuary Partnership to manage 
     implementation of the Comprehensive Plan;
       ``(ii) not less than 50 percent of the funds to make 
     grants, as allocated by the Team Leader, for projects, 
     programs and studies prioritized in the Action Plan 
     throughout the Columbia River Basin, and for other 
     coordinated projects, programs, and studies in the Middle and 
     Upper Columbia River Basin; and
       ``(iii) not more than 5 percent of the funds for project 
     management, administration, and reporting.
       ``(4) Federal share.--The Federal share of the costs for 
     which a grant is made under this section shall be 75 percent, 
     except that the Administrator may increase the Federal share 
     in such circumstances as the Administrator determines 
     appropriate.
       ``(f) Annual Budget Plan.--The President, as part of the 
     President's annual budget submission to Congress under 
     section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, shall submit 
     information regarding each Federal agency involved in 
     protection and restoration of the Columbia River Basin, 
     including--
       ``(1) an interagency crosscut budget that displays for each 
     Federal agency--
       ``(A) the amounts obligated in the preceding fiscal year 
     for protection and restoration projects, programs, and 
     studies relating to the Columbia River Basin;
       ``(B) the estimated budget for the current fiscal year for 
     protection and restoration projects, programs, and studies 
     relating to the Columbia River Basin; and
       ``(C) the proposed budget for protection and restoration 
     projects, programs, and studies relating to the Columbia 
     River Basin; and
       ``(2) a description and assessment of the Federal role in 
     the development and implementation of the Action Plan and the 
     Comprehensive Plan and the specific role of each Federal 
     agency involved in protection and restoration of the Columbia 
     River Basin, including specific projects, programs, and 
     studies conducted or planned to achieve the identified goals 
     and objectives of the Action Plan and the Comprehensive Plan.
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Administrator to carry out this 
     section $40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011 through 
     2016. Such sums shall remain available until expended.''.

                          ____________________