[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 86 (Wednesday, June 9, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4746-S4752]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Brown of Massachusetts):
  S. 3465. A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal 
Service located at 15 South Main Street in Sharon, Massachusetts, as 
the ``Michael C. Rothberg Post Office''; to the Committee on Homeland 
Security and Government Affairs.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce legislation to 
designate the United States Postal Service in Sharon, Massachusetts, as 
the Michael C. Rothberg Post Office.
  Michael Craig Rothberg was born and raised in Sharon. Upon graduation 
from Sharon High School, Michael earned both undergraduate and master's 
degree in math and computer science from McGill University in Montreal. 
Unfortunately, Michael Rothberg's life was tragically cut short on the 
morning of September 11, 2001, at age 39, while working in his Cantor 
Fitzgerald office on the 104th floor of the World Trade Center.
  During his lifetime, Michael Rothberg created much more than a 
successful professional life. He used his resources generously 
contributing not only financial support, but also his time and energy 
for causes he believed in. He worked hard for causes such as the Dana 
Farber Cancer Institute's Jimmy Fund, the Multiple Sclerosis 
Foundation, and Mutual Funds against Cancer. His spirit is remembered 
through many contributions to the Town of Sharon through the Michael C. 
Rothberg Memorial Scholarship and other notable charitable 
contributions to students, athletes and the community of Sharon, 
Massachusetts.
  The people of Sharon, Massachusetts are very proud of Michael and the 
example he set. It is fitting then that when people go to or pass by 
the post office in Sharon, they will be reminded of a local man who 
understood how important it is to give back to causes that touch your 
heart.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY:
  S. 3466. A bill to require restitution for victims of criminal 
violations of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I introduce the Environmental Crimes 
Enforcement Act, ECEA, common sense legislation that will ensure that 
those who destroy the lives and livelihoods of Americans through 
environmental crime are held accountable.
  It has been 50 days since the collapse of British Petroleum's 
Deepwater Horizon Oil Rig, which killed 11 men. Oil continues to gush 
into the Gulf of Mexico, and deadly contaminants are washing up on the 
shores and wetlands of Gulf Coast States. This catastrophe threatens 
the livelihood of many thousands of people throughout the region, as 
well as precious natural resources and habitats. The people responsible 
for this catastrophe must be held accountable; they, not the American 
taxpayers, should pay for the damage and the recovery. The bill I 
introduce today aims to deter environmental crime, protect and 
compensate its victims, and encourage accountability among corporate 
actors.
  First, ECEA will deter schemes by Big Oil and other corporations and 
industries that damage our environment and hurt hardworking Americans 
by increasing sentences for environmental crimes. All too often, 
corporations treat fines and monetary penalties as merely a cost of 
doing business to be factored against profits. To deter criminal 
behavior by corporations, it is important to have laws resulting in 
prison time. In that light, this bill directs the United States 
Sentencing Commission to amend the sentencing guidelines for 
environmental crimes to reflect the seriousness of these crimes.
  Criminal penalties for Clean Water Act violations are not as severe 
as for other white-collar crimes, despite the widespread harm such 
crimes can cause. As the current crisis makes clear, Clean Water Act 
offenses can have serious consequences on people's lives and 
livelihoods, which should be reflected in the sentences given to the 
criminals who commit them. This bill takes a reasonable approach, 
asking the Sentencing Commission to study the issue and raise 
sentencing guidelines appropriately, and it will have a real deterrent 
effect.
  This bill also aims to help victims of environmental crime--the 
people who lose their livelihoods, their communities, and even their 
loved ones--reclaim their natural and economic resources. To do that, 
ECEA makes restitution mandatory for criminal Clean Water Act 
violations.
  Currently, restitution in environmental crimes--even crimes that 
result in death--is discretionary, and only available under limited 
circumstances. Under this bill, those who commit Clean Water Act 
offenses would have to compensate the victims of these offense for 
their losses. That restitution will help the people of the Gulf Coast 
rebuild their coastline and wetlands, their fisheries, and their 
livelihoods should criminal liability be found.
  Importantly, this bill will allow the families of those killed to be 
compensated for criminal wrongdoing. As we have seen in the BP case, 
arbitrary laws prevent those killed in tragedies like this one from 
bringing civil lawsuits for compensation. This bill would ensure that, 
when a crime is committed, the criminal justice system can provide for 
restitution to victims, providing some small measure of security for 
the families of those killed.
  This bill takes two common sense steps--well-reasoned increases in 
sentences and mandatory restitution for environmental crime. These 
measures are tough, but fair. They are important steps toward deterring 
criminal conduct that can cause environmental and economic disaster and 
toward helping those who have suffered so much from the wrongdoing of 
Big Oil and other large corporations. I hope all Senators will join me 
in supporting this important reform.
  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:

[[Page S4747]]

                                S. 3466

       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 ``Environmental Crimes 
     Enforcement Act of 2010''.

     SEC. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES.

       (a) Sentencing Guidelines.--
       (1) Directive.--Pursuant to its authority under section 994 
     of title 28, United States Code, and in accordance with this 
     subsection, the United States Sentencing Commission shall 
     review and amend the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and policy 
     statements applicable to persons convicted of offenses under 
     the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et 
     seq.), in order to reflect the intent of Congress that 
     penalties for the offenses be increased in comparison to 
     those provided on the date of enactment of this Act under the 
     guidelines and policy statements, and appropriately account 
     for the actual harm to the public and the environment from 
     the offenses.
       (2) Requirements.--In amending the Federal Sentencing 
     Guidelines and policy statements under paragraph (1), the 
     United States Sentencing Commission shall--
       (A) ensure that the guidelines and policy statements, 
     including section 2Q1.2 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines 
     (and any successor thereto), reflect--
       (i) the serious nature of the offenses described in 
     paragraph (1);
       (ii) the need for an effective deterrent and appropriate 
     punishment to prevent the offenses; and
       (iii) the effectiveness of incarceration in furthering the 
     objectives described in clauses (i) and (ii);
       (B) consider the extent to which the guidelines 
     appropriately account for the actual harm to public and the 
     environment resulting from the offenses;
       (C) ensure reasonable consistency with other relevant 
     directives and guidelines and Federal statutes;
       (D) make any necessary conforming changes to guidelines; 
     and
       (E) ensure that the guidelines relating to offenses under 
     the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et 
     seq.) adequately meet the purposes of sentencing, as set 
     forth in section 3553(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code.
       (b) Restitution.--Section 3663A(c)(1) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in clause (ii), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in clause (iii), by striking ``and'' at the end and 
     inserting ``or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iv) an offense under the Federal Water Pollution Control 
     Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.); and''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself and Mr. Corker):
  S. 3470. A bill to designate as wilderness certain public land in the 
Cherokee National Forest in the State of Tennessee, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Corker and myself, 
I rise to introduce the Tennessee Wilderness Act of 2010. The 
legislation will implement an important next step in conservation for 
some of the wildest, most beautiful and pristine areas in east 
Tennessee near where I live. To say that these are among the wildest, 
most pristine and beautiful areas sets a very high bar since the region 
is home to the Appalachian Mountains, and our Nation's most visited 
national park, a World Heritage site--in fact, one of the most visited 
sites in the world--the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, much of 
which is managed as if it were a wilderness area.
  From growing up in these mountains and my many years of hiking the 
quiet trails of the Cherokee National Forest, I can attest that the 
wilderness areas we protected there are something very special. 
Congress began protecting wilderness areas in the Cherokee National 
Forest in 1975, with additional wilderness areas being established by 
the Tennessee Wilderness Act of 1984 and the Tennessee Wilderness Act 
of 1986. I was Governor of Tennessee during that time. I remember 
testifying on behalf of and strongly supporting our congressional 
delegation as we did that. I know sometimes our western friends are 
surprised to see Tennessee Republicans advocating wilderness, bragging 
about the fact that the Great Smoky Mountains National Park is managed 
in large extent as if it were a wilderness area and adding certain 
sections of the Cherokee National Forest to wilderness.
  The Federal Government doesn't own very much of our land, but we have 
lots of visitors. Two or three times as many people visited the Great 
Smokies as visit Yellowstone. We have lots of visitors but very little 
Federal land. We like to protect it. We like to have clean air. We like 
to enjoy it ourselves.
  We like the Cherokee National Forest because it gives us an 
opportunity to do some things we can't do in the national park. We can 
hunt, fish, ride horses, camp, do things in a great many ways. I 
believe this legislation, the Tennessee Wilderness Act of 2010, will 
create for Tennessee families and especially Tennessee youngsters, who 
need to be outdoors and away from the computer screens and television 
screens, an even more attractive opportunity to enjoy this beautiful 
part of our natural heritage.
  I emphasize that the lands that will be designated as wilderness by 
this legislation are already Federal lands. They are part of the 
Cherokee National Forest. The areas covered were recommended for 
wilderness by the U.S. Forest Service in the development of its 
comprehensive 2004 forest plan which included extensive opportunities 
for public comment. Those areas have been managed as if they were 
wilderness areas since that time.
  This new bill will officially designate as wilderness nearly 20,000 
acres as recommended by the Forest Service. The bill establishes one 
new wilderness area, the 9,038 acre Upper Bald River Wilderness in 
Monroe County. This new area complements the existing Bald River Gorge 
Wilderness. It lies just south of that existing area, separated only by 
the Bald River Road, which will, of course, remain an open public road.
  By protecting the Upper Bald River Wilderness as well as the existing 
wilderness area, we will be protecting most of the Bald River 
watershed. Excellent trails traverse the Upper Bald River area, 
including the Benton MacKaye Trail, offering excellent hiking, 
backpacking, and horseback riding, as well as access for hunters and 
fishermen.
  The rest of the lands designated as wilderness in this legislation 
are relatively small but important additions to some of the areas 
Congress established in 1975, 1984 and 1986. They have the effect of 
better protecting not only ecosystems and watersheds but also the 
diverse recreational value of these areas.
  At the southern end of the Cherokee National Forest is one of the 
largest national forest wilderness complexes in the Southeastern United 
States. It comprises the Cohutta Wilderness, most of which lies in 
Georgia, and the Big Frog Wilderness in Polk County, TN. The new 
legislation makes a small but important addition of 348 acres to the 
Big Frog Wilderness. The Big Frog-Cohutta combination, with adjacent 
primitive areas, creates the largest track of wilderness on national 
forest lands in the Eastern United States.
  In the same way, the new legislation makes two small but important 
additions to the Little Frog Mountain Wilderness, also in Polk County. 
These additions, totaling 966 acres, were recommended by the Forest 
Service to give more logical boundaries to the Little Frog Mountain 
Wilderness and protect the corridor for the Benton MacKaye Trail.
  In upper east Tennessee, in Unicoi and Washington Counties, this new 
legislation would add 2,922 acres to the Sampson Mountain Wilderness. 
This is at the heart of a marvelous scenic region of our State. Along 
these scenic trails, visitors can see flame azalea, mountain laurel, 
rhododendron, trailing arbutus, crested dwarf iris, mayapple, 
bloodroot, toothwort, magnolia, dogwood, redbud, and many other 
flowering plants, shrubs, and trees. The last 2 or 3 months have been 
the time of year to visit that area with its many species of shrubs and 
trees.
  The 1986 Tennessee Wilderness Act established the Big Laurel Branch 
Wilderness in Carter and Johnson Counties at the furthest upper east 
Tennessee end of our State. The new legislation proposes to add 4,446 
acres, including some 4.5 miles of the Appalachian National Scenic 
Trail. The addition lies along the slopes of Iron Mountain just north 
of Watauga Lake, one of the cleanest lakes in America.

  The final element of the new legislation is an important addition to 
the Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness. Here visitors will find perhaps 
the most impressive stands of virgin eastern forest in the United 
States. The 1,836-acre addition includes remnant old-growth forest. The 
Benton MacKaye Trail passes through this area, making it a

[[Page S4748]]

popular destination for horseback riders and hikers.
  This is a simple bill, but it will make a significant contribution 
for these wild and pristine areas of the Cherokee National Forest.
  I thank and salute the Cherokee National Forest staff and the many 
citizens of Tennessee who worked to define these proposals and to build 
grassroots support. These proposals have broad support from outdoors 
clubs, trail maintenance groups, local businesses, and conservation 
organizations.
  I specifically want to thank Will Skelton, a Knoxville lawyer who has 
been instrumental in conservation for decades in Tennessee. No one has 
done more to help more families appreciate, enjoy, and hike in the 
Cherokee National Forest than has Will Skelton. I thank the Tennessee 
Wild group for their role in this proposal.
  Getting out in the woods and mountains of east Tennessee is an ever 
more popular activity. People go to the wilderness to experience nature 
most wild, walking a trail to some resting place where the noises are 
trees creaking, the smells are of wet moss and leaves, the colors are 
pure, and the world is at peace. That is why these protected wilderness 
areas have such immense value for our people, and it is why the value 
will multiply many times as our world grows more crowded.
  The foundational statute under which we protect the wilderness areas 
is the 1964 Wilderness Act. The Congress of that time showed 
extraordinary prescience about the threats that destroy wilderness:

       In order to assure that an increasing population, 
     accompanied by expanding settlement and growing 
     mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas of the 
     United States and its possessions, leaving no lands 
     designated for preservation and protection in their natural 
     condition, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the 
     Congress to secure for the American people of present and 
     future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of 
     wilderness.

  We need more opportunities for young Americans to get away from the 
computer screens and into the American outdoors. Eastern Tennessee 
provides a beautiful place to do that, and this act will provide more 
opportunities for that as well.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
support material be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3470

       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 ``Tennessee Wilderness Act of 
     2010''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Map.--The term ``Map'' means the map entitled 
     ``Proposed Wilderness Areas and Additions-Cherokee National 
     Forest'' and dated January 20, 2010.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.
       (3) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of 
     Tennessee.

     SEC. 3. ADDITIONS TO CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST.

       (a) Designation of Wilderness.--In accordance with the 
     Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following 
     Federal lands in the Cherokee National Forest in the State of 
     Tennessee are designated as wilderness and as additions to 
     the National Wilderness Preservation System:
       (1) Certain land comprising approximately 9,038 acres, as 
     generally depicted as the ``Upper Bald River Wilderness'' on 
     the Map and which shall be known as the ``Upper Bald River 
     Wilderness''.
       (2) Certain land comprising approximately 348 acres, as 
     generally depicted as the ``Big Frog Addition'' on the Map 
     and which shall be incorporated in, and shall be considered 
     to be a part of, the Big Frog Wilderness.
       (3) Certain land comprising approximately 630 acres, as 
     generally depicted as the ``Little Frog Mountain Addition 
     NW'' on the Map and which shall be incorporated in, and shall 
     be considered to be a part of, the Little Frog Mountain 
     Wilderness.
       (4) Certain land comprising approximately 336 acres, as 
     generally depicted as the ``Little Frog Mountain Addition 
     NE'' on the Map and which shall be incorporated in, and shall 
     be considered to be a part of, the Little Frog Mountain 
     Wilderness.
       (5) Certain land comprising approximately 2,922 acres, as 
     generally depicted as the ``Sampson Mountain Addition'' on 
     the Map and which shall be incorporated in, and shall be 
     considered to be a part of, the Sampson Mountain Wilderness.
       (6) Certain land comprising approximately 4,446 acres, as 
     generally depicted as the ``Big Laurel Branch Addition'' on 
     the Map and which shall be incorporated in, and shall be 
     considered to be a part of, the Big Laurel Branch Wilderness.
       (7) Certain land comprising approximately 1,836 acres, as 
     generally depicted as the ``Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Addition'' 
     on the Map and which shall be incorporated in, and shall be 
     considered to be a part of, the Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock 
     Wilderness.
       (b) Maps and Legal Descriptions.--
       (1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall file maps and 
     legal descriptions of the wilderness areas designated by 
     subsection (a) with the appropriate committees of Congress.
       (2) Public availability.--The maps and legal descriptions 
     filed under paragraph (1) shall be on file and available for 
     public inspection in the office of the Chief of the Forest 
     Service and the office of the Supervisor of the Cherokee 
     National Forest.
       (3) Force of law.--The maps and legal descriptions filed 
     under paragraph (1) shall have the same force and effect as 
     if included in this Act, except that the Secretary may 
     correct typographical errors in the maps and descriptions.
       (c) Administration.--Subject to valid existing rights, the 
     Federal lands designated as wilderness by subsection (a) 
     shall be administered by the Secretary in accordance with the 
     Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), except that any 
     reference in that Act to the effective date of that Act shall 
     be deemed to be a reference to the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
                                  ____


                       To Protect and To Preserve

         [From the Chattanooga Times Free Press, Sept. 8, 2009]

                           (Editorial Board)

       There seemingly are few exceptions to the paroxysms of 
     partisanship that have paralyzed the nation's capital lately, 
     but there is at last one issue of vital importance where 
     widespread agreement provides immeasurable benefit to the 
     nation. Even in the current political climate, usually 
     antagonistic members of Congress continue to provide broad 
     support for the federal wilderness program. Good for them.
       Such bipartisan agreement has been the case since the 
     inception of the Wilderness Act, which was signed into law by 
     President Lyndon B. Johnson 45 years ago this month. At its 
     inception, the program protected 9 million acres in 54 
     wilderness areas. Today, there are more than 109 million 
     protected acres in 44 states. Expansion efforts, thank 
     goodness, continue unabated.
       It is a matter of record that the valuable program has 
     grown continuously under both Democratic and Republican 
     administrations. President Ronald Reagan, a Republican, 
     signed more laws to increase wilderness property than any 
     other president, but Democrat occupants of the White House 
     have done their duty as well.
       President Barack Obama is the latest to do so. In March, he 
     signed a bill that established 52 new wilderness areas and 
     that increased acreage at more than two dozen existing 
     wilderness areas. His signature added more than 2 million 
     acres to the protection program.
       Every president since Mr. Johnson has now signed 
     legislation to expand wilderness areas. An examination of the 
     record, in fact, shows a steady increase over the years in 
     the number of protected acres regardless of who occupies the 
     White House or which party controls Congress. It's proof that 
     unanimity of purpose in politics is possible if not always 
     procurable.
       There are now more than 800 wilderness areas in the United 
     States. They range in size from tiny--the five-acre Rocks and 
     Islands Wilderness in California--to the stagger-the-
     imagination nine million acres in the Wrangeli-Saint Elias 
     Wilderness in Alaska. The latter state has the most protected 
     acreage with more than 57 million acres. Ohio, with 77 acres, 
     has the least.
       Georgia and Tennessee are in the middle of the pack. The 
     former has nearly 500,000 protected wilderness acres and the 
     latter just over 66,000 acres. Those numbers are likely to 
     grow. Efforts to add acreage to protected wilderness areas 
     and to related areas such as the nearby Cherokee National 
     Forest, already the largest tract of public land in 
     Tennessee, are ongoing. All deserve widespread support.
       By law, wilderness areas are protected and managed to 
     preserve their natural condition. Use of the land is severely 
     restricted, and properly so, to non-invasive activities such 
     as hiking, backpacking and horseback riding. That's 
     appropriate. Wilderness preservation and protection programs 
     help ensure that future generations can enjoy the nation's 
     patrimony. They also are powerful reminders that we all share 
     an obligation to preserve and to protect such singularly 
     American open spaces.
                                  ____


               OP-ED--Skelton: New Areas Need Protection

           [From the Knoxville News Sentinel, Oct. 24, 2009]

                           (By Will Skelton)

       On Oct. 30, 1984, President Ronald Reagan signed into law a 
     landmark bill that protected many of the outstandingly scenic 
     portions of the southern Cherokee National Forest in 
     Tennessee from timber harvesting, mining and road building.
       Thousands of Tennesseans and Americans have used and 
     enjoyed those areas protected as wilderness in 1984; without 
     that bill, many

[[Page S4749]]

     such areas would have been clear cut and roads built through 
     them. The areas range from the lofty peaks of the Citico 
     Creek and Big Frog Wildernesses to the waterfalls of the Bald 
     River Wilderness and to the quieter streams of Little Frog 
     Mountain Wilderness.
       The bill was called the Tennessee Wilderness Act of 1984 
     and was supported by then-governor Lamar Alexander, then-U.S. 
     representative John J. Duncan, and both of our senators, 
     Howard Baker and James Sasser. The bill protected 32,606 
     acres (out of a total of 640,000 acres in the Cherokee) in 
     areas known as Big Frog Mountain, Bald River Gorge, Citico 
     Creek, and Little Frog Mountain.
       Such areas were designated as ``wilderness,'' the highest 
     form of protection for our federally owned public lands. It 
     protects forests ``in perpetuity'' from logging, mining and 
     road building while allowing for traditional activities like 
     hiking, hunting, horseback riding, fishing and camping. 
     Wilderness also protects wildlife habitat, ensures clean 
     water supplies, and sequesters carbon.
       I was coordinator of the Cherokee National Forest 
     Wilderness Coalition that led the effort to have these areas 
     protected. I edited a guidebook to the Cherokee's trails that 
     was published by University of Tennessee Press (``Hiking 
     Guide to the Cherokee National Forest''), and to which 
     Alexander did the forward for both the first (1992) and 
     second (2005) editions.
       It has been 25 years since any additional wilderness has 
     been protected in the Cherokee National Forest, in spite of 
     several qualified candidates. These areas include the 
     wonderful Upper Bald River and several additions to existing 
     wilderness areas. The U.S. Forest Service recommended 
     wilderness protection for most of these areas. However, its 
     recommendations can only become ``wilderness'' if Congress 
     approves under the Wilderness Act of 1964.
       A newly formed coalition, Tennessee Wild (http://
tnwild.org/), is urging the protection of the additional 
     areas recommended by the forest service.
       Several points are important to consider regarding this 
     current wilderness proposal:
       1. The Cherokee National Forest consists of 640,000 acres, 
     roughly the same as the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, 
     with 340,969 in the northern Cherokee and 298,998 in the 
     southern Cherokee. Only 66,389 acres or 10.37 percent of the 
     forest is designated as wilderness; the areas listed above 
     would add only 17,785 acres, so we are talking about a very 
     modest increase.
       2. No land is to be acquired by the forest service, as the 
     land proposed for wilderness is already owned by the 
     government.
       3. Pursuant to the forest service's current management 
     plan, the service's recommended areas are currently managed 
     as wilderness. So no additional management or change would be 
     required and, because of the nature of wilderness, its 
     management is extremely low cost.
       4. No roads would be closed; nor would any facilities be 
     affected as a result of the forest service's recommendation.
       5. Finally, and maybe most important, the areas recommended 
     for wilderness are the best unprotected scenic and natural 
     areas in the southern Cherokee National Forest.
       We are hopeful that our current political leaders, 
     especially Rep. John J. Duncan Jr. and Sens. Alexander and 
     Bob Corker, will act to protect these additional areas. Let 
     the words of John Muir, featured recently in the Ken Burns' 
     PBS special on our national parks, inspire us to action: 
     ``Everybody needs beauty as well as bread, places to play in 
     and pray in, where nature may heal and give strength to body 
     and soul.''
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID:
  S. 3473. A bill to amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to authorize 
advances from Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for the Deepwater Horizon 
oil spill; considered and passed.
  Mr. REID. 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. 3473

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

     SECTION 1. ADVANCES FROM OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND FOR 
                   DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL.

       Section 6002(b) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 
     2752) is amended in the second sentence--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``Coast Guard''; and
       (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``and (2) in the case of the discharge of oil that 
     began in 2010 in connection with the explosion on, and 
     sinking of, the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater 
     Horizon, may, without further appropriation, obtain 1 or more 
     advances from the Fund as needed, up to a maximum of 
     $100,000,000 for each advance, with the total amount of all 
     advances not to exceed the amounts available under section 
     9509(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and within 7 
     days of each advance, shall notify Congress of the amount 
     advanced and the facts and circumstances necessitating the 
     advance''.

     SEC. 2. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

       The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 
     complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010, shall 
     be determined by reference to the latest statement titled 
     ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, 
     submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the 
     Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, provided that such 
     statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Carper, Mr. McCain, Mr. Gregg, 
        Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Bennet, and Mr. 
        Udall of Colorado):
  S. 3474. A bill to provide an optional fast-track procedure the 
President may use when submitting rescission requests, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the Senator 
from Delaware, Mr. Carper, and the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, 
and others in introducing the Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act of 2010, 
a bill which effectively gives the President a line item veto to cancel 
wasteful spending.
  Based on President Obama's proposal, our measure would permit the 
President to get expedited consideration in both the House and Senate 
of a package of proposed spending cuts within larger spending bills 
Congress sends to the President. The President would have 45 days from 
when the initial spending measure was enacted to submit his proposed 
cuts, and once that package of cuts is sent to the Hill, Congress would 
have less than a month to act on them. Any savings produced if Congress 
enacts these spending cut packages would go directly to reduce the 
deficit.
  Just a few weeks ago, I chaired a hearing of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee's Constitution Subcommittee at which this proposal and 
similar proposals were reviewed, and I am pleased to say that the 
consensus of that hearing is that the bill we are introducing today is 
clearly constitutional.
  When he took office, President Obama was handed perhaps the worst 
economic and fiscal mess facing any administration since Franklin 
Roosevelt took office in 1933. The legacy President Obama inherited 
poses a gigantic challenge.
  There is no magic bullet that will solve all our budget problems. 
Congress has to make some tough decisions, and there will be no 
avoiding them if we are to get our fiscal house in order. But we can 
take some steps that will help Congress make the right decisions, and 
that can sustain the progress we make.
  A line-item veto, properly structured and respectful of the 
constitutionally central role Congress plays, as this legislation is, 
can help us get back on track.
  As I noted before, Mr. President, I am joined in this effort by a 
number of colleagues, but most notably by Senator Carper and Senator 
McCain. I have been privileged to work on a number of critical budget 
reforms with Senator Carper. He has long been an advocate of this kind 
of expedited rescission or line item veto authority, and was the lead 
author of a similarly structured measure when he served in the other 
body.
  I have also been pleased to work with Senator McCain on budget 
matters. He and I have worked together for the past two decades to 
oppose wasteful earmark spending, and more recently I have been pleased 
to work with him on line item veto proposals, including this one.
  I also thank my colleague from Wisconsin, Congressman Paul Ryan, for 
working with me on this issue for several years now. He and I belong to 
different political parties, and differ on many issues. But we do share 
at least two things in common--our hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin, 
and an abiding respect for Wisconsin's tradition of fiscal 
responsibility. Earlier this year, Congressman Ryan raised this issue 
with President Obama at a meeting in Baltimore, and I thank him for his 
efforts to advance this issue.
  The bill we introduce today is a significant step forward in our 
joint efforts to provide the President with the kind of authority 
needed to cut wasteful spending. As I noted earlier, this legislation 
is essentially the bill President Obama proposed just a few weeks ago. 
It provides the President the ability to get quick and definitive 
congressional action on cuts to individual programs in large spending 
bills.
  Currently, the President must choose between vetoing a bill in its 
entirety,

[[Page S4750]]

or signing it and possibly enacting billions of dollars of wasteful 
spending. With this bill, the President will have a third option--
signing a spending bill, but then submitting a package of proposed cuts 
from that spending bill to Congress for quick review. The package of 
cuts proposed by the President will get an up or down vote in the House 
and, if it passes there, an up or down vote in the Senate.
  Our line item veto bill covers earmark discretionary spending as well 
as broader non-entitlement spending accounts. The measure excludes 
entitlement spending and tax expenditures from the expedited rescission 
approach. Spending done through entitlements and tax expenditures make 
up an enormous amount of the total spending done by the Federal 
Government. However, unlike the programmatic spending done in 
discretionary programs, where cuts can be made by zeroing out or 
reducing a number for a specific account, reducing spending in 
entitlements or tax expenditures often requires a change in the 
underlying policy. Indeed, Congress already has a fast-track procedure 
designed specifically for considering legislation that reduces spending 
done through entitlements and tax expenditures. It is called 
reconciliation, and it was used effectively in the 1990s to reduce the 
deficit.
  As I mentioned, a key target of this new line item veto bill is the 
unauthorized earmark spending that too often finds its way into large 
appropriations bills. Earmark spending was what Congressman Ryan and I 
targeted in our line item veto proposal, and it is the example every 
line-item veto proponent cites when promoting their legislation.
  When President Bush asked for this kind of authority, the examples he 
gave when citing wasteful spending he wanted to target were 
congressional earmarks. When Members of the House or Senate tout a new 
line-item veto authority to go after government waste, the examples 
they give are congressional earmarks. When editorial pages argue for a 
new line-item veto, they, too, cite congressional earmarks as the 
reason for granting the President this new authority.
  Unauthorized congressional earmarks are a serious problem. We won't 
solve our budget problems just by addressing earmarks, but if we are to 
get our fiscal house in order, eliminating earmarks has to be part of 
the solution. For all the lip service Congress pays to this issue, 
there are still thousands of earmarked spending provisions enacted 
every year. Just last year, the Omnibus Appropriations bill for fiscal 
year 2009 passed in March of 2009 contained more than 8,000 earmarks 
costing $7 billion, and the Consolidated Appropriations bill for fiscal 
year 2010 passed in December of 2009 included nearly 5,000 earmarks, 
costing $3.7 billion.
  There is no excuse for a system that allows that kind of wasteful 
spending year after year. And given the unwillingness of Congress to 
discipline itself in this regard, it is appropriate to provide the 
President some additional authority to seek an up or down vote in 
Congress on proposed cuts in this area of spending.
  This is not a cure-all. We will not balance the budget just by 
passing a line item veto-like authority for the President. Nor will we 
balance the budget just by eliminating wasteful earmark spending. But 
we can make real progress in getting our fiscal house in order, and in 
changing the culture of Washington which over the last 2 decades has 
seen an explosion of spending done through unauthorized earmarks that 
circumvent regular congressional review and the scrutiny of the 
competitive grant process.
  Like the measure Congressman Ryan and I introduced, under this 
proposal, wasteful spending doesn't have anywhere to hide. It's out in 
the open, so that both Congress and the President have a chance to get 
rid of wasteful projects before they begin. The taxpayers--who pay the 
price for these projects--deserve a process that shows some real fiscal 
discipline, and that is what this legislation promotes.
  President Obama recognizes the pernicious effect earmarks have on the 
entire process. When he asked Congress to take the extraordinary step 
of sending him a massive economic recovery package, he knew such a 
large package of spending and tax cuts would naturally attract 
earmarks. He also recognized that were earmarks to be added to the 
bill, it would undermine his ability to get it enacted, so he rightly 
insisted it be free of earmarks.
  I am delighted he has stepped forward to propose a new line item 
veto-like authority, and I am especially pleased to be introducing that 
proposal with my colleagues today.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3474

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Reduce 
     Unnecessary Spending Act of 2010''.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to create an 
     optional fast-track procedure the President may use when 
     submitting rescission requests, which would lead to an up-or-
     down vote by Congress on the President's package of 
     rescissions, without amendment.

     SEC. 2. RESCISSIONS OF FUNDING.

       The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by striking 
     part C and inserting the following:

       ``PART C--EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED RESCISSIONS

     ``SEC. 1021. APPLICABILITY AND DISCLAIMER.

       ``The rules, procedures, requirements, and definitions in 
     this part apply only to executive and legislative actions 
     explicitly taken under this part. They do not apply to 
     actions taken under part B or to other executive and 
     legislative actions not taken under this part.

     ``SEC. 1022. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this part:
       ``(1) The terms `appropriations Act', `budget authority', 
     and `new budget authority' have the same meanings as in 
     section 3 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       ``(2) The terms `account', `` `current year' '', `CBO', and 
     `OMB' have the same meanings as in section 250 of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 as 
     in effect on September 30, 2002.
       ``(3) The term `days of session' shall be calculated by 
     excluding weekends and national holidays. Any day during 
     which a chamber of Congress is not in session shall not be 
     counted as a day of session of that chamber. Any day during 
     which neither chamber is in session shall not be counted as a 
     day of session of Congress.
       ``(4) The term `entitlement law' means the statutory 
     mandate or requirement of the United States to incur a 
     financial obligation unless that obligation is explicitly 
     conditioned on the appropriation in subsequent legislation of 
     sufficient funds for that purpose, and the Supplemental 
     Nutrition Assistance Program.
       ``(5) The term `funding' refers to new budget authority and 
     obligation limits except to the extent that the funding is 
     provided for entitlement law.
       ``(6) The term `rescind' means to eliminate or reduce the 
     amount of enacted funding.
       ``(7) The terms `withhold' and `withholding' apply to any 
     executive action or inaction that precludes the obligation of 
     funding at a time when it would otherwise have been available 
     to an agency for obligation. The terms do not include 
     administrative or preparatory actions undertaken prior to 
     obligation in the normal course of implementing budget laws.

     ``SEC. 1023. TIMING AND PACKAGING OF RESCISSION REQUESTS.

       ``(a) Timing.--If the President proposes that Congress 
     rescind funding under the procedures in this part, OMB shall 
     transmit a message to Congress containing the information 
     specified in section 1024, and the message transmitting the 
     proposal shall be sent to Congress not later than 45 calendar 
     days after the date of enactment of the funding.
       ``(b) Packaging and Transmittal of Requested Rescissions.--
     Except as provided in subsection (c), for each piece of 
     legislation that provides funding, the President shall 
     request at most 1 package of rescissions and the rescissions 
     in that package shall apply only to funding contained in that 
     legislation. OMB shall deliver each message requesting a 
     package of rescissions to the Secretary of the Senate if the 
     Senate is not in session and to the Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives if the House is not in session. OMB shall 
     make a copy of the transmittal message publicly available, 
     and shall publish in the Federal Register a notice of the 
     message and information on how it can be obtained.
       ``(c) Special Packaging Rules.--After enactment of--
       ``(1) a joint resolution making continuing appropriations;
       ``(2) a supplemental appropriations bill; or
       ``(3) an omnibus appropriations bill;
     covering some or all of the activities customarily funded in 
     more than 1 regular appropriations bill, the President may 
     propose as many as 2 packages rescinding funding contained in 
     that legislation, each within the 45-day period specified in 
     subsection (a). OMB shall not include the same rescission in 
     both packages, and, if the President requests the rescission 
     of more than one discrete amount of funding under the 
     jurisdiction of

[[Page S4751]]

     a single subcommittee, OMB shall include each of those 
     discrete amounts in the same package.

     ``SEC. 1024. REQUESTS TO RESCIND FUNDING.

       ``For each request to rescind funding under this part, the 
     transmittal message shall--
       ``(1) specify--
       ``(A) the dollar amount to be rescinded;
       ``(B) the agency, bureau, and account from which the 
     rescission shall occur;
       ``(C) the program, project, or activity within the account 
     (if applicable) from which the rescission shall occur;
       ``(D) the amount of funding, if any, that would remain for 
     the account, program, project, or activity if the rescission 
     request is enacted; and
       ``(E) the reasons the President requests the rescission;
       ``(2) designate each separate rescission request by number; 
     and
       ``(3) include proposed legislative language to accomplish 
     the requested rescissions which may not include--
       ``(A) any changes in existing law, other than the 
     rescission of funding; or
       ``(B) any supplemental appropriations, transfers, or 
     reprogrammings.

     ``SEC. 1025. GRANTS OF AND LIMITATIONS ON PRESIDENTIAL 
                   AUTHORITY.

       ``(a) Presidential Authority to Withhold Funding.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law and if the 
     President proposes a rescission of funding under this part, 
     OMB may, subject to the time limits provided in subsection 
     (c), temporarily withhold that funding from obligation.
       ``(b) Expedited Procedures Available Only Once Per Bill.--
     The President may not invoke the procedures of this part, or 
     the authority to withhold funding granted by subsection (a), 
     on more than 1 occasion for any Act providing funding.
       ``(c) Time Limits.--OMB shall make available for obligation 
     any funding withheld under subsection (a) on the earliest 
     of--
       ``(1) the day on which the President determines that the 
     continued withholding or reduction no longer advances the 
     purpose of legislative consideration of the rescission 
     request;
       ``(2) starting from the day on which OMB transmitted a 
     message to Congress requesting the rescission of funding, 25 
     calendar days in which the House of Representatives has been 
     in session or 25 calendar days in which the Senate has been 
     in session, whichever occurs second; or
       ``(3) the last day after which the obligation of the 
     funding in question can no longer be fully accomplished in a 
     prudent manner before its expiration.
       ``(d) Deficit Reduction.--
       ``(1) In general.--Funds that are rescinded under this part 
     shall be dedicated only to reducing the deficit or increasing 
     the surplus.
       ``(2) Adjustment of levels in the concurrent resolution on 
     the budget.--Not later than 5 days after the date of 
     enactment of an approval bill as provided under this part, 
     the chairs of the Committees on the Budget of the Senate and 
     the House of Representatives shall revise allocations and 
     aggregates and other appropriate levels under the appropriate 
     concurrent resolution on the budget to reflect the repeal or 
     cancellation, and the applicable committees shall report 
     revised suballocations pursuant to section 302(b), as 
     appropriate.

     ``SEC. 1026. CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION OF RESCISSION 
                   REQUESTS.

       ``(a) Preparation of Legislation to Consider a Package of 
     Expedited Rescission Requests.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the House of Representatives receives 
     a package of expedited rescission requests, the Clerk shall 
     prepare a House bill that only rescinds the amounts requested 
     which shall read as follows:
       ``There are enacted the rescissions numbered [insert number 
     or numbers] as set forth in the Presidential message of 
     [insert date] transmitted under part C of the Impoundment 
     Control Act of 1974 as amended.
       ``(2) Exclusion procedure.--The Clerk shall include in the 
     bill each numbered rescission request listed in the 
     Presidential package in question, except that the Clerk shall 
     omit a numbered rescission request if the Chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget of the House, after consulting with 
     the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate, 
     CBO, GAO, and the House and Senate committees that have 
     jurisdiction over the funding, determines that the numbered 
     rescission does not refer to funding or includes matter not 
     permitted under a request to rescind funding.
       ``(b) Introduction and Referral of Legislation to Enact a 
     Package of Expedited Rescissions.--The majority leader or the 
     minority leader of the House or Representatives, or a 
     designee, shall (by request) introduce each bill prepared 
     under subsection (a) not later than 4 days of session of the 
     House after its transmittal, or, if no such bill is 
     introduced within that period, any member of the House may 
     introduce the required bill in the required form on the fifth 
     or sixth day of session of the House after its transmittal. 
     If such an expedited rescission bill is introduced in 
     accordance with the preceding sentence, it shall be referred 
     to the House committee of jurisdiction. A copy of the 
     introduced House bill shall be transmitted to the Secretary 
     of the Senate, who shall provide it to the Senate committee 
     of jurisdiction.
       ``(c) House Report and Consideration of Legislation to 
     Enact a Package of Expedited Rescissions.--The House 
     committee of jurisdiction shall report without amendment the 
     bill referred to it under subsection (b) not more than 5 days 
     of session of the House after the referral. The committee may 
     order the bill reported favorably, unfavorably, or without 
     recommendation. If the committee has not reported the bill by 
     the end of the 5-day period, the committee shall be 
     automatically discharged from further consideration of the 
     bill and it shall be placed on the appropriate calendar.
       ``(d) House Motion to Proceed.--
       ``(1) In general.--After a bill to enact an expedited 
     rescission package has been reported or the committee of 
     jurisdiction has been discharged under subsection (c), it 
     shall be in order to move to proceed to consider the bill in 
     the House. A Member who wishes to move to proceed to 
     consideration of the bill shall announce that fact, and the 
     motion to proceed shall be in order only during a time 
     designated by the Speaker within the legislative schedule for 
     the next calendar day of legislative session or the one 
     immediately following it.
       ``(2) Failure to set time.--If the Speaker does not 
     designate a time under paragraph (1), 3 or more calendar days 
     of legislative session after the bill has been reported or 
     discharged, it shall be in order for any Member to move to 
     proceed to consider the bill.
       ``(3) Procedure.--A motion to proceed under this subsection 
     shall not be in order after the House has disposed of a prior 
     motion to proceed with respect to that package of expedited 
     rescissions. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the motion to proceed, without intervening motion. 
     A motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion to 
     proceed has been disposed of shall not be in order.
       ``(4) Removal from calendar.--If 5 calendar days of 
     legislative session have passed since the bill was reported 
     or discharged under this subsection and no Member has made a 
     motion to proceed, the bill shall be removed from the 
     calendar.
       ``(e) House Consideration.--
       ``(1) Considered as read.--A bill consisting of a package 
     of rescissions under this part shall be considered as read.
       ``(2) Points of order.--All points of order against the 
     bill are waived, except that a point of order may be made 
     that 1 or more numbered rescissions included in the bill 
     would enact language containing matter not requested by the 
     President or not permitted under this part as part of that 
     package. If the Presiding Officer sustains such a point of 
     order, the numbered rescission or rescissions that would 
     enact such language are deemed to be automatically stripped 
     from the bill and consideration proceeds on the bill as 
     modified.
       ``(3) Previous question.--The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill to its passage without 
     intervening motion, except that 4 hours of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent are 
     allowed, as well as 1 motion to further limit debate on the 
     bill.
       ``(4) Motion to reconsider.--A motion to reconsider the 
     vote on passage of the bill shall not be in order.
       ``(f) Senate Consideration.--
       ``(1) Referral.--If the House of Representatives approves a 
     House bill enacting a package of rescissions, that bill as 
     passed by the House shall be sent to the Senate and referred 
     to the Senate committee of jurisdiction.
       ``(2) Committee action.--The committee of jurisdiction 
     shall report without amendment the bill referred to it under 
     this subsection not later than 3 days of session of the 
     Senate after the referral. The committee may order the bill 
     reported favorably, unfavorably, or without recommendation.
       ``(3) Discharge.--If the committee has not reported the 
     bill by the end of the 3-day period, the committee shall be 
     automatically discharged from further consideration of the 
     bill and it shall be placed on the appropriate calendar.
       ``(4) Motion to proceed.--On the following day and for 3 
     subsequent calendar days in which the Senate is in session, 
     it shall be in order for any Senator to move to proceed to 
     consider the bill in the Senate. Upon such a motion being 
     made, it shall be deemed to have been agreed to and the 
     motion to reconsider shall be deemed to have been laid on the 
     table.
       ``(5) Debate.--Debate on the bill in the Senate under this 
     subsection, and all debatable motions and appeals in 
     connection therewith, shall not exceed 10 hours, equally 
     divided and controlled in the usual form. Debate in the 
     Senate on any debatable motion or appeal in connection with 
     such a bill shall be limited to not more than 1 hour, to be 
     equally divided and controlled in the usual form. A motion to 
     further limit debate on such a bill is not debatable.
       ``(6) Motions not in order.--A motion to amend such a bill 
     or strike a provision from it is not in order. A motion to 
     recommit such a bill is not in order.
       ``(g) Senate Point of Order.--It shall not be in order 
     under this part for the Senate to consider a bill approved by 
     the House enacting a package of rescissions under this part 
     if any numbered rescission in the bill would enact matter not 
     requested by the President or not permitted under this Act as 
     part of that package. If a point of order under this 
     subsection is sustained, the bill may not be considered under 
     this part.''.

     SEC. 3. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Table of Contents.--Section 1(b) of the Congressional 
     Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by 
     striking

[[Page S4752]]

     the matter for part C of title X and inserting the following:

       ``PART C--Expedited Consideration of Proposed Rescissions

``Sec. 1021. Applicability and disclaimer.
``Sec. 1022. Definitions.
``Sec. 1023. Timing and packaging of rescission requests.
``Sec. 1024. Requests to rescind funding.
``Sec. 1025. Grants of and limitations on presidential authority.
``Sec. 1026. Congressional consideration of rescission requests.''.
       (b) Temporary Withholding.--Section 1013(c) of the 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by striking 
     ``section 1012'' and inserting ``section 1012 or section 
     1025''
       (c) Rulemaking.--
       (1) 904(a).--Section 904(a) of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 is amended by striking ``and 1017'' and inserting 
     ``1017, and 1026''.
       (2) 904(d)(1).--Section 904 (d)(1) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 is amended by striking ``1017'' and 
     inserting ``1017 or 1026''.

     SEC. 4. AMENDMENTS TO PART A OF THE IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT.

       (a) In General.--Part A of the Impoundment Control Act of 
     1974 is amended by inserting at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 1002. SEVERABILITY.

       ``If the judicial branch of the United States finally 
     determines that 1 or more of the provisions of parts B or C 
     violate the Constitution of the United States, the remaining 
     provisions of those parts shall continue in effect.''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--Section 1(b) of the Congressional 
     Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by 
     inserting at the end of the matter for part A of title X the 
     following:

``Sec. 1002. Severability.''.

     SEC. 5. EXPIRATION.

       Part C of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (as amended 
     by this Act) shall expire on December 31, 2014.

                          ____________________