[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 101 (Thursday, June 26, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4156-S4163]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. Cruz):
  S. 2537. A bill to provide legal certainty to property owners along 
the Red River in Texas, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. CORNYN. 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. 2537

       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 ``Red River Private Property 
     Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds as follows:
       (1) In 1923, the Supreme Court found the border between 
     Texas and Oklahoma to be: ``the water-washed and relatively 
     permanent elevation or acclivity at the outer line of the 
     river bed which separates the bed from the adjacent upland, 
     whether valley or hill, and serves to confine the waters 
     within the bed and to preserve the course of the river, and 
     that the boundary intended is on and along the bank at the 
     average or mean level attained by the waters in the periods 
     when they reach and wash the bank without overflowing it. 
     When we speak of the bed, we include all of the area which is 
     kept practically bare of vegetation by the wash of the waters 
     of the river from year to year in their onward course, 
     although parts of it are left dry for months at a time, and 
     we exclude the lateral valleys, which have the 
     characteristics of relatively fast land and usually are 
     covered by upland grasses and vegetation, although 
     temporarily overflowed in exceptional instances when the 
     river is at flood.''.
       (2) This would become known as the ``gradient boundary''.
       (3) This decision makes clear that, absent water that is 
     physically touching the bank, the high bluff or ``ancient 
     bank'' along the southern edge of the Red River is not the 
     boundary between Texas and Oklahoma.
       (4) In 2000, Public Law 106-288 ratified the Red River 
     Boundary Compact agreed to and signed into State law by Texas 
     and Oklahoma that sets the boundary between the States to be 
     the vegetation line on the south bank of the Red River, 
     except for the Texoma area where the boundary is established 
     pursuant to procedures provided for in the Compact.
       (5) Therefore, the Bureau of Land Management should have no 
     claim to land that is either south of the ``gradient 
     boundary'' established by the Supreme Court or south of the 
     vegetation line on the southern bank of the Red River 
     pursuant to Public Law 106-288 whereby landowners have proof 
     of their right, title, and interest to the land and have been 
     paying property taxes accordingly.

     SEC. 3. ISSUANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEEDS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall relinquish and shall 
     transfer by quit claim deed all right, title, and interest of 
     the United States in and to Red River lands to any claimant 
     who demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that 
     official county or State records indicate that the claimant 
     holds all right, title, and interest to those lands.
       (b) Public Notification.--The Secretary shall publish in 
     the Federal Register and on official and appropriate Web 
     sites the process to receive written and/or electronic 
     submissions of the documents required under subsection (a). 
     The Secretary shall treat all proper notifications received 
     from the claimant as fulfilling the satisfaction requirements 
     under subsection (a).
       (c) Standard of Approval.--The Secretary shall accept all 
     official county and State records as filed in the county on 
     the date of submission proving right, title, and interest.
       (d) Time Period for Approval or Disapproval of Request.--
     The Secretary shall approve or disapprove a request for a 
     quit claim deed under subsection (a) not later than 120 days 
     after the date on which the written request is received by 
     the Secretary. If the Secretary fails to approve or 
     disapprove such a request by the end of such 120-day period, 
     the request shall be deemed to be approved.

     SEC. 4. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN.

       The Secretary shall ensure that no parcels of Red River 
     lands are treated as Federal land for the purpose of any 
     resource management plan until the Secretary has ensured that 
     such parcels are not subject to transfer under section 3.

     SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

       For the purposes of this Act--
       (1) the term ``Red River lands'' means lands along the 
     approximately 539-mile stretch of the Red River between the 
     States of Texas and Oklahoma; and
       (2) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the 
     Interior, acting through the Director of Bureau of Land 
     Management.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Brown, Mr. Reed, Ms. Warren, Ms. 
        Baldwin, and Mr. Sanders):
  S. 2540. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a tax credit to Patriot employers, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2540

       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 ``Patriot Employer Tax Credit 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. PATRIOT EMPLOYER TAX CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 45S. PATRIOT EMPLOYER TAX CREDIT.

       ``(a) Determination of Amount.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of section 38, the Patriot 
     employer credit determined under this section with respect to 
     any taxpayer who is a Patriot employer for any taxable year 
     shall be equal to 10 percent of the qualified wages paid or 
     incurred by the Patriot employer.
       ``(2) Limitation.--The amount of qualified wages which may 
     be taken into account under paragraph (1) with respect to any 
     employee for any taxable year shall not exceed $15,000.
       ``(b) Patriot Employer.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term 
     `Patriot employer' means, with respect to any taxable year, 
     any taxpayer--
       ``(A) which--
       ``(i) maintains its headquarters in the United States if 
     the taxpayer (or any predecessor) has ever been headquartered 
     in the United States, and
       ``(ii) is not (and no predecessor of which is) an 
     expatriated entity (as defined in section 7874(a)(2)) for the 
     taxable year or any preceding taxable year ending after March 
     4, 2003,
       ``(B) with respect to which no assessable payment has been 
     imposed under section 4980H with respect to any month 
     occurring during the taxable year, and
       ``(C) in the case of--
       ``(i) a taxpayer which employs an average of more than 50 
     employees on business days during the taxable year, which--

       ``(I) provides compensation for at least 90 percent of its 
     employees for services provided by such employees during the 
     taxable year at an hourly rate (or equivalent thereof) not 
     less than an amount equal to 150 percent of the Federal 
     poverty level for a family of three for the calendar year in 
     which the taxable year begins divided by 2,080,
       ``(II) meets the retirement plan requirements of subsection 
     (c) with respect to at least 90 percent of its employees 
     providing services during the taxable year who are not highly 
     compensated employees, and
       ``(III) meets the additional requirements of subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B) of paragraph (2), or

       ``(ii) any other taxpayer, which meets the requirements of 
     either subclause (I) or (II) of clause (i) for the taxable 
     year.
       ``(2) Additional requirements for large employers.--
       ``(A) United states employment.--The requirements of this 
     subparagraph are met for any taxable year if--
       ``(i) in any case in which the taxpayer increases the 
     number of employees performing substantially all of their 
     services for the taxable year outside the United States, the 
     taxpayer either--

       ``(I) increases the number of employees performing 
     substantially all of their services inside the United States 
     by an amount not less than the increase in such number for 
     employees outside the United States, or
       ``(II) has a percentage increase in such employees inside 
     the United States which is not less than the percentage 
     increase in such employees outside the United States,

       ``(ii) in any case in which the taxpayer decreases the 
     number of employees performing substantially all of their 
     services for the taxable year inside the United States, the 
     taxpayer either--

       ``(I) decreases the number of employees performing 
     substantially all of their services outside the United States 
     by an amount not less than the decrease in such number for 
     employees inside the United States, or
       ``(II) has a percentage decrease in employees outside the 
     United States which is not less than the percentage decrease 
     in such employees inside the United States, and

       ``(iii) there is not a decrease in the number of employees 
     performing substantially all of their services for the 
     taxable year inside the United States by reason of the 
     taxpayer contracting out such services to persons who are not 
     employees of the taxpayer.
       ``(B) Treatment of individuals in the uniformed services 
     and the disabled.--The requirements of this subparagraph are 
     met for any taxable year if--
       ``(i) the taxpayer provides differential wage payments (as 
     defined in section 3401(h)(2)) to each employee described in 
     section

[[Page S4157]]

     3401(h)(2)(A) for any period during the taxable year in an 
     amount not less than the difference between the wages which 
     would have been received from the employer during such period 
     and the amount of pay and allowances which the employee 
     receives for service in the uniformed services during such 
     period, and
       ``(ii) the taxpayer has in place at all times during the 
     taxable year a written policy for the recruitment of 
     employees who have served in the uniformed services or who 
     are disabled.
       ``(3) Special rules for applying the minimum wage and 
     retirement plan requirements.--
       ``(A) Minimum wage.--In determining whether the minimum 
     wage requirements of paragraph (1)(C)(i)(I) are met with 
     respect to 90 percent of a taxpayer's employees for any 
     taxable year--
       ``(i) a taxpayer may elect to exclude from such 
     determination apprentices or learners that an employer may 
     exclude under the regulations under section 14(a) of the Fair 
     Labor Standards Act of 1938, and
       ``(ii) if a taxpayer meets the requirements of paragraph 
     (2)(B)(i) with respect to providing differential wage 
     payments to any employee for any period (without regard to 
     whether such requirements apply to the taxpayer), the hourly 
     rate (or equivalent thereof) for such payments shall be 
     determined on the basis of the wages which would have been 
     paid by the employer during such period if the employee had 
     not been providing service in the uniformed services.
       ``(B) Retirement plan.--In determining whether the 
     retirement plan requirements of paragraph (1)(C)(i)(II) are 
     met with respect to 90 percent of a taxpayer's employees for 
     any taxable year, a taxpayer may elect to exclude from such 
     determination--
       ``(i) employees not meeting the age or service requirements 
     under section 410(a)(1) (or such lower age or service 
     requirements as the employer provides), and
       ``(ii) employees described in section 410(b)(3).
       ``(c) Retirement Plan Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--The requirements of this subsection are 
     met for any taxable year with respect to an employee of the 
     taxpayer who is not a highly compensated employee if the 
     employee is eligible to participate in 1 or more applicable 
     eligible retirement plans maintained by the employer for a 
     plan year ending with or within the taxable year.
       ``(2) Applicable eligible retirement plan.--For purposes of 
     this subsection, the term `applicable eligible retirement 
     plan' means an eligible retirement plan which, with respect 
     to the plan year described in paragraph (1), is either--
       ``(A) a defined contribution plan which--
       ``(i) requires the employer to make nonelective 
     contributions of at least 5 percent of the compensation of 
     the employee, or
       ``(ii) both--

       ``(I) includes an eligible automatic contribution 
     arrangement (as defined in section 414(w)(3)) under which the 
     uniform percentage described in section 414(w)(3)(B) is at 
     least 5 percent, and
       ``(II) requires the employer to make matching contributions 
     of 100 percent of the elective deferrals (as defined in 
     section 414(u)(2)(C)) of the employee to the extent such 
     deferrals do not exceed the percentage specified by the plan 
     (not less than 5 percent) of the employee's compensation, or

       ``(B) a defined benefit plan--
       ``(i) with respect to which the accrued benefit of the 
     employee derived from employer contributions, when expressed 
     as an annual retirement benefit, is not less than the product 
     of--

       ``(I) the lesser of 2 percent multiplied by the employee's 
     years of service (determined under the rules of paragraphs 
     (4), (5), and (6) of section 411(a)) with the employer or 20 
     percent, multiplied by
       ``(II) the employee's final average pay, or

       ``(ii) which is an applicable defined benefit plan (as 
     defined in section 411(a)(13)(B))--

       ``(I) which meets the interest credit requirements of 
     section 411(b)(5)(B)(i) with respect to the plan year, and
       ``(II) under which the employee receives a pay credit for 
     the plan year which is not less than 5 percent of 
     compensation.

       ``(3) Definitions and special rules.--For purposes of this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) Eligible retirement plan.--The term `eligible 
     retirement plan' has the meaning given such term by section 
     402(c)(8)(B), except that in the case of an account or 
     annuity described in clause (i) or (ii) thereof, such term 
     shall only include an account or annuity which is a 
     simplified employee pension (as defined in section 408(k)).
       ``(B) Final average pay.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (2)(B)(i)(II), final average pay shall be determined using 
     the period of consecutive years (not exceeding 5) during 
     which the employee had the greatest compensation from the 
     taxpayer.
       ``(C) Alternative plan designs.--The Secretary may 
     prescribe regulations for a taxpayer to meet the requirements 
     of this subsection through a combination of defined 
     contribution plans or defined benefit plans described in 
     paragraph (1) or through a combination of both such types of 
     plans.
       ``(D) Plans must meet requirements without taking into 
     account social security and similar contributions and 
     benefits.--A rule similar to the rule of section 416(e) shall 
     apply.
       ``(d) Qualified Wages and Compensation.--For purposes of 
     this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `qualified wages' means wages 
     (as defined in section 51(c), determined without regard to 
     paragraph (4) thereof) paid or incurred by the Patriot 
     employer during the taxable year to employees--
       ``(A) who perform substantially all of their services for 
     such Patriot employer inside the United States, and
       ``(B) with respect to whom--
       ``(i) in the case of a Patriot employer which employs an 
     average of more than 50 employees on business days during the 
     taxable year, the requirements of subclauses (I) and (II) of 
     subsection (b)(1)(C)(i) are met, and
       ``(ii) in the case of any other Patriot employer, the 
     requirements of either subclause (I) or (II) of subsection 
     (b)(1)(C)(i) are met .
       ``(2) Special rules for agricultural labor and railway 
     labor.--Rules similar to the rules of section 51(h) shall 
     apply.
       ``(3) Compensation.--For purposes of subsections 
     (b)(1)(C)(i)(I) and (c), the term `compensation' has the same 
     meaning as qualified wages, except that section 51(c)(2) 
     shall be disregarded in determining the amount of such wages.
       ``(e) Aggregation Rules.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--All persons treated as a single employer 
     under subsection (a) or (b) of section 52 shall be treated as 
     a single taxpayer.
       ``(2) Special rules for certain requirements.--For purposes 
     of applying paragraphs (1)(A) and (2)(A) of subsection (b)--
       ``(A) the determination under subsections (a) and (b) of 
     section 52 for purposes of paragraph (1) shall be made 
     without regard to section 1563(b)(2)(C) (relating to 
     exclusion of foreign corporations), and
       ``(B) if any person treated as a single taxpayer under this 
     subsection (after application of subparagraph (A)), or any 
     predecessor of such person, was an expatriated entity (as 
     defined in section 7874(a)(2)) for any taxable year ending 
     after March 4, 2003, then all persons treated as a single 
     taxpayer with such person shall be treated as expatriated 
     entities.
       ``(f) Election to Have Credit Not Apply.--
       ``(1) In general.--A taxpayer may elect to have this 
     section not apply for any taxable year.
       ``(2) Time for making election.--An election under 
     paragraph (1) for any taxable year may be made (or revoked) 
     at any time before the expiration of the 3-year period 
     beginning on the last date prescribed by law for filing the 
     return for such taxable year (determined without regard to 
     extensions).
       ``(3) Manner of making election.--An election under 
     paragraph (1) (or revocation thereof) shall be made in such 
     manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe.''.
       (b) Allowance as General Business Credit.--Section 38(b) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 
     ``plus'' at the end of paragraph (35), by striking the period 
     at the end of paragraph (36) and inserting ``, plus'', and by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(37) in the case of a Patriot employer (as defined in 
     section 45S(b)) for any taxable year, the Patriot employer 
     credit determined under section 45S(a).''.
       (c) Denial of Double Benefit.--Subsection (a) of section 
     280C of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
     inserting ``45S(a),'' after ``45P(a)''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2014.

     SEC. 3. DEFER DEDUCTION OF INTEREST EXPENSE RELATED TO 
                   DEFERRED INCOME.

       (a) In General.--Section 163 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to deductions for interest expense) is 
     amended by redesignating subsection (n) as subsection (o) and 
     by inserting after subsection (m) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(n) Deferral of Deduction for Interest Expense Related to 
     Deferred Income.--
       ``(1) General rule.--The amount of foreign-related interest 
     expense of any taxpayer allowed as a deduction under this 
     chapter for any taxable year shall not exceed an amount equal 
     to the applicable percentage of the sum of--
       ``(A) the taxpayer's foreign-related interest expense for 
     the taxable year, plus
       ``(B) the taxpayer's deferred foreign-related interest 
     expense.

     For purposes of the paragraph, the applicable percentage is 
     the percentage equal to the current inclusion ratio.
       ``(2) Treatment of deferred deductions.--If, for any 
     taxable year, the amount of the limitation determined under 
     paragraph (1) exceeds the taxpayer's foreign-related interest 
     expense for the taxable year, there shall be allowed as a 
     deduction for the taxable year an amount equal to the lesser 
     of--
       ``(A) such excess, or
       ``(B) the taxpayer's deferred foreign-related interest 
     expense.
       ``(3) Definitions and special rule.--For purposes of this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) Foreign-related interest expense.--The term `foreign-
     related interest expense' means, with respect to any taxpayer 
     for any taxable year, the amount which bears the same ratio 
     to the amount of interest expense for such taxable year 
     allocated and apportioned under sections 861, 864(e), and 
     864(f) to income from sources outside the United States as--

[[Page S4158]]

       ``(i) the value of all stock held by the taxpayer in all 
     section 902 corporations with respect to which the taxpayer 
     meets the ownership requirements of subsection (a) or (b) of 
     section 902, bears to
       ``(ii) the value of all assets of the taxpayer which 
     generate gross income from sources outside the United States.
       ``(B) Deferred foreign-related interest expense.--The term 
     `deferred foreign-related interest expense' means the excess, 
     if any, of the aggregate foreign-related interest expense for 
     all prior taxable years beginning after December 31, 2014, 
     over the aggregate amount allowed as a deduction under 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) for all such prior taxable years.
       ``(C) Value of assets.--Except as otherwise provided by the 
     Secretary, for purposes of subparagraph (A)(ii), the value of 
     any asset shall be the amount with respect to such asset 
     determined for purposes of allocating and apportioning 
     interest expense under sections 861, 864(e), and 864(f).
       ``(D) Current inclusion ratio.--The term `current inclusion 
     ratio' means, with respect to any domestic corporation which 
     meets the ownership requirements of subsection (a) or (b) of 
     section 902 with respect to one or more section 902 
     corporations for any taxable year, the ratio (expressed as a 
     percentage) of--
       ``(i) the sum of all dividends received by the domestic 
     corporation from all such section 902 corporations during the 
     taxable year plus amounts includible in gross income under 
     section 951(a) from all such section 902 corporations, in 
     each case computed without regard to section 78, divided by
       ``(ii) the aggregate amount of post-1986 undistributed 
     earnings.
       ``(E) Aggregate amount of post-1986 undistributed 
     earnings.--The term `aggregate amount of post-1986 
     undistributed earnings' means, with respect to any domestic 
     corporation which meets the ownership requirements of 
     subsection (a) or (b) of section 902 with respect to one or 
     more section 902 corporations, the domestic corporation's pro 
     rata share of the post-1986 undistributed earnings (as 
     defined in section 902(c)(1)) of all such section 902 
     corporations.
       ``(F) Foreign currency conversion.--For purposes of 
     determining the current inclusion ratio, and except as 
     otherwise provided by the Secretary, the aggregate amount of 
     post-1986 undistributed earnings for the taxable year shall 
     be determined by translating each section 902 corporation's 
     post-1986 undistributed earnings into dollars using the 
     average exchange rate for such year.
       ``(G) Section 902 corporation.--The term `section 902 
     corporation' has the meaning given to such term by section 
     909(d)(5).
       ``(4) Treatment of affiliated groups.--The current 
     inclusion ratio of each member of an affiliated group (as 
     defined in section 864(e)(5)(A)) shall be determined as if 
     all members of such group were a single corporation.
       ``(5) Application to separate categories of income.--This 
     subsection shall be applied separately with respect to the 
     categories of income specified in section 904(d)(1).
       ``(6) Regulations.--The Secretary may prescribe such 
     regulations or other guidance as is necessary or appropriate 
     to carry out the purposes of this subsection, including 
     regulations or other guidance providing--
       ``(A) for the proper application of this subsection with 
     respect to changes in ownership of a section 902 corporation,
       ``(B) that certain corporations that otherwise would not be 
     members of the affiliated group will be treated as members of 
     the affiliated group for purposes of this subsection,
       ``(C) for the proper application of this subsection with 
     respect to the taxpayer's share of a deficit in earnings and 
     profits of a section 902 corporation,
       ``(D) for appropriate adjustments to the determination of 
     the value of stock in any section 902 corporation for 
     purposes of this subsection or to the foreign-related 
     interest expense to account for income that is subject to tax 
     under section 882(a)(1), and
       ``(E) for the proper application of this subsection with 
     respect to interest expense that is directly allocable to 
     income with respect to certain assets.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2014.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. HEITKAMP (for herself and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 2547. A bill to establish the Railroad Emergency Services 
Preparedness, Operational Needs, and Safety Evaluation (RESPONSE) 
Subcommittee under the Federal Emergency Management Agency's National 
Advisory Council to provide recommendations on emergency responder 
training and resources relating to hazardous materials incidents 
involving railroads, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, on December 30, 2013, outside of 
Casselton, ND, a train carrying crude oil derailed setting off a series 
of explosions and fire. The first on the scene that day were our local 
first responders from the Casselton Fire Department, a small volunteer 
department.
  Whether floods, tornados, accidents, or man-made incidents, our local 
first responders are on the front line and we need to make sure they 
are trained and prepared to handle anything that may come their way and 
that they have the equipment necessary to do their jobs effectively and 
efficiently. The incident in Casselton and others across the country 
have shined a bright light on the need to make sure our local first 
responders are prepared specifically for emerging threats and hazards.
  Only a few short years ago, trains carried very little crude. And 
when crude was carried by rail, it was in relatively small amounts 
mixed in with a variety of other commodities and container shipments. 
Since that time, our country has experienced impressive economic growth 
in the oil industry, but with that important growth we have seen an 
exponential increase in shipments of crude by rail. According to the 
Association of American Railroads, the number of carloads carrying 
crude oil on major freight railroads in the U.S. grew by more than 
6,000 percent between 2008 and 2013. Now, we are seeing entire trains 
of linked tanker cars carrying more than half a million barrels of 
crude to market.
  As we witnessed in Casselton, had the first responders not had the 
training they did, this disaster could have been much worse. It's 
important that our local first responders have access to training to 
prepare them for these emerging threats and hazards. Traffic continues 
to increase on our rail system, and we must make sure local first 
responders in our communities are equipped to respond quickly and 
appropriately.
  To improve first responder training, I am introducing the RESPONSE 
Act to bring together relevant agencies, emergency responders, 
technical experts and the private sector under FEMA's National Advisory 
Council to review the training, resources, best practices and unmet 
needs on emergency response to railroad hazmat incidents, including 
crude oil transport. This group would be tasked with reviewing current 
training, funding, existing emergency response plans and providing 
recommendations on steps to enhance emergency responder training and 
improve the allocation of resources to meet the needs.
  Our local first responders are on the front lines and will be the 
first to respond in an emergency. We need to make sure they are 
equipped with the knowledge and training to protect our communities. I 
hope my colleagues will join me in this effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Nelson, Mrs. 
        McCaskill, Mr. Levin, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Franken, Mr. Brown, Ms. 
        Baldwin, Mr. Whitehouse, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Markey, Mr. Merkley, 
        Ms. Klobuchar, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. 
        Schatz, Ms. Warren, and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 2548. A bill to require the Commodity Futures Trading commission 
to take certain emergency action to eliminate excessive speculation in 
energy markets; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as we are about to begin the Fourth of 
July district work period in my State and throughout this country, many 
people are going to be getting into their automobiles and they are 
going to be traveling. In general, people who live in rural States such 
as Vermont don't have the option of getting on a subway. They don't 
have the option of getting on a bus to get to work. They use their 
automobile. In Vermont and all across this country, people who are 
driving have noticed that the price of gasoline at the pump has soared 
and is today much higher than it used to be.
  According to the Energy Information Administration, the national 
average retail price for regular unleaded gasoline is $3.70 a gallon--
the highest price for this time of year since 2008. According to the 
AAA, drivers in three States have paid over $4 a gallon at the pump for 
more than a month, and those States are Hawaii, California, and Alaska. 
In my home State of Vermont, the current average for a gallon of gas is 
about $3.73.
  When the price of gasoline goes up, a lot of people get hurt and the 
economy gets impacted. But mostly it affects working people who have no 
other option but traveling by car, and many of

[[Page S4159]]

these workers are making $10, $12, $15 an hour; and many of these 
workers have seen declines in their wages in recent years. Yet, in 
order to get to work to make a living, they have to get in the car and 
they have no choice but to pay soaring gas prices.
  While gas prices are soaring, people should not be shocked or will 
not be shocked to know that the big oil companies, which have racked up 
$1.2 trillion in profits since 2001, are now telling us that the reason 
gas prices are going up is because of the volatile situation in Iraq. 
That is why suddenly gas prices have gone up--because of the conflict 
in Iraq.
  The American people are sick and tired of hearing from the big oil 
companies using every excuse they possibly can. If it is snowing, the 
price of gas goes up. If there is conflict in the Middle East, the 
price of gas goes up. If it is raining, if it is sunny, if it is 
somebody's birthday, the price of gas goes up. Interestingly enough, we 
don't see that same logic when the price of gas should be going down, 
but it always seems to be going up. Meanwhile, the five biggest oil 
companies in America--again, not too surprisingly--continue to make 
huge profits. During the first quarter of this year, ExxonMobil made a 
profit of $9.1 billion--the first quarter; Shell made $7.3 billion, 
Chevron made $4.5 billion, and ConocoPhillips made $2.1 billion. The 
price of gas at the pump soars and the major oil companies make huge 
profits.
  Last year, these five major oil companies--ExxonMobil, Shell, 
Chevron, ConocoPhillips--made $93 billion in profits. ExxonMobil alone 
made nearly $33 billion in profits in 2013.
  So in the State of Vermont and all over this country, working people 
are seeing, in many cases, declines in their wages. Yet they have to 
get to work. Meanwhile, the price of oil, the price of gas soars, and 
the oil companies make out like bandits.
  Here is the interesting point: When I was in high school--and I 
suspect kids all over the country are still being taught this--we 
learned about a theory called supply and demand. What supply and demand 
is about is when there is a lot of supply and limited demand, prices go 
down. When there is limited supply and a lot of demand, prices go up.
  Well, guess what. To nobody's surprise, that is not the way it works 
in the oil industry. Today, there is more supply and less demand for 
gasoline than there was 5 years ago when the average price of a gallon 
of gas was just $2.69 a gallon. So let me repeat that. More supply, 
less demand, and today the price of a gallon of gas is $3.70 a gallon, 
but 5 years ago it was $2.69 a gallon. Where is the logic of supply and 
demand? Where is that process?
  According to the EIA, there has been a 9 million barrel increase in 
the supply of gasoline over the past 5 years--a 9 million barrel 
increase. Since 2009, the United States has increased gasoline supplies 
by 4.3 percent. Supply has gone up. What about demand? According to the 
EIA, the United States is consuming 96,000 fewer barrels of gasoline 
than it did in 2009--a 1-percent drop in demand compared to 5 years 
ago. If the supply and demand theory were true, gasoline prices would 
be a bit lower--a bit lower--than they were 5 years ago--somewhere 
perhaps in the neighborhood of $2.69 a gallon. Instead, despite the 
increase in supply, despite the lowering of demand, the average price 
for a gallon of gas in the United States has gone up by nearly 38 
percent over the last 5 years, from $2.69 a gallon to $3.70 a gallon. 
Let me repeat. Since 2009 the supply of gasoline has gone up by more 
than 4 percent and demand for gasoline has gone down by 1 percent. Yet 
prices at the pump are up by nearly 38 percent.
  People say: We need more oil, we need more gas. It doesn't matter--
supply up, demand down, prices of gas at the pump soaring.
  The truth is the high gasoline prices have less to do with supply and 
demand and more to do with Wall Street speculators driving prices up in 
the energy futures market. Over a decade ago, speculators only 
controlled about 30 to 40 percent of the oil futures market. Today, 
Wall Street speculators control about 80 percent of this market. Let me 
repeat. Wall Street speculators control about 80 percent of the oil 
futures market, even though many of them will never use a drop of the 
oil. People think that when people own oil on the oil futures market, 
they actually own it because they are going to use it. Maybe it is the 
airline industry; maybe it is the trucking industry; maybe it is oil 
fuel dealers. Wrong. The oil futures market is controlled by 
speculators who never use the end product and whose only goal in life 
is to drive prices up to make a huge profit, and that is exactly what 
they do.
  We, as the elected officials of this country, who are presumably 
representing working families around America, have a responsibility to 
do everything we can to make sure the price of gasoline at the pump is 
based on the fundamentals of supply and demand and not Wall Street 
greed. That is why I am introducing legislation today to require the 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission to use all of its authority, 
including its emergency powers, to eliminate excessive oil speculation.
  This bill is cosponsored by Senators Levin, Nelson, Blumenthal, 
McCaskill, Franken, Brown, Cardin, Baldwin, Whitehouse, Markey, 
Klobuchar, Shaheen, Merkley, and Hirono. Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro is 
introducing the companion bill in the House. I thank all of these 
Members for their support.
  Our legislation, the Energy Markets Emergency Act, is identical to 
bipartisan legislation that overwhelmingly passed the House of 
Representatives by a vote of 402 to 19 during a similar crisis in June 
of 2008.
  Specifically, our bill directs the CFTC to do the following within 14 
days of enactment:
  No. 1: Immediately curb the role of excessive speculation in any 
contract market within the jurisdiction and control of the Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission, on or through which energy futures or swaps 
are traded.
  No. 2: Eliminate excessive speculation, price distortion, sudden or 
unreasonable fluctuations or unwarranted changes in prices or other 
unlawful activity that is causing major market disturbances that 
prevent gasoline and oil prices from accurately reflecting the forces 
of supply and demand.
  There is now a growing consensus--this is not just the opinion of 
Bernie Sanders--there is a growing consensus that excessive speculation 
on the oil futures market is significantly contributing to the high 
prices the American people are seeing at the pump.
  ExxonMobil, Goldman Sachs, the IMF, the St. Louis Federal Reserve, 
the American Trucking Association, Delta Airlines, the Petroleum 
Marketers Association of America, the New England Fuel Institute, the 
Consumer Federation of America, and many other organizations have all 
agreed that excessive oil speculation has significantly increased oil 
and gas prices.
  Just a few years ago, Goldman Sachs--perhaps the largest speculator 
on Wall Street--came out with a report indicating that excessive oil 
speculation is costing Americans 56 cents a gallon at the pump--56 
cents a gallon. I personally think that is a conservative estimate, but 
it is interesting that it comes from Goldman Sachs itself.
  The CEO--and what can we say--the CEO of ExxonMobil has testified in 
the past that he believes excessive speculation has contributed as much 
as 40 percent to the price of a barrel of oil.
  So what you are hearing is some of the Wall Street people--in a rare 
moment of honesty--acknowledging the impact of speculation. You are 
hearing the head of the largest oil company in America acknowledging 
the impact of speculation on gas prices. I think we do not need a whole 
lot of evidence to suggest this is a serious problem.
  Three years ago my office obtained confidential information about how 
much Wall Street speculators were trading in the oil futures market on 
just one day--and that day was June 30, 2008--when the price of oil was 
over $140 a barrel and gas prices were over $4 a gallon. Here is what 
some of the biggest oil speculators were doing back then, on just one 
day of trading: June 30, 2008. This goes on every day. One day: Goldman 
Sachs bought and sold over 863 million barrels of oil, Morgan Stanley 
bought and sold over 632 million barrels of oil, Bank of America bought 
and sold over 112 million barrels of oil, Lehman Brothers--obviously 
now bankrupt--bought and sold over 300 million barrels of oil, Merrill

[[Page S4160]]

Lynch--bought by Bank of America--bought and sold over 240 million 
barrels of oil.
  The only reason these firms were betting on the price of oil was to 
speculate and to make money. Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, they do 
not use oil. Their only function in this process is speculation, 
driving up prices and making huge profits.
  The rise in oil and gasoline prices was entirely avoidable. The Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act required the CFTC 
to impose strict limits on the amount of oil that Wall Street 
speculators could trade in the energy futures market by January 17, 
2011--over 3\1/2\ years ago.
  Unfortunately, the CFTC has been unable to implement position limits 
due to opposition from Wall Street and a ruling by the DC Circuit 
Court. This is simply unacceptable. Millions and millions of Americans 
who are filling up their gas tanks today are disgusted. They know they 
are being ripped off, and they want us to protect their needs. The time 
is now to provide the American people relief at the gas pump before the 
situation gets even worse.
  I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. Brown):
  S. 2557. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965 to provide for State accountability in the provision of access 
to the core resources for learning, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Core 
Opportunity Resources for Equity and Excellence Act with my colleague 
Senator Brown. I would also like to thank Representatives Fudge, 
Hinojosa, and Frederica Wilson for introducing companion legislation in 
the House of Representatives. Our accountability systems in education 
should help us measure our progress towards equity and excellence. The 
CORE Act will help advance that goal by requiring States to include 
fair and equitable access to the core resources for learning in their 
accountability systems.
  Sixty years after the landmark decision of Brown v. Board of 
Education, one of the great challenges still facing this Nation is 
stemming the tide of rising inequality. We have seen the rich get 
richer while middle class and low-income families have lost ground. We 
see disparities in opportunity starting at birth and growing over a 
lifetime. With more than one in five school-aged children living in 
families in poverty, according to Department of Education statistics, 
we cannot afford nor should we tolerate a public education system that 
steers resources and opportunities away from the children who need them 
the most.
  We should look to hold our education system accountable for results 
and resources. We know that resources matter. A recent study by 
scholars at Northwestern University and UC Berkeley found that 
increasing per pupil spending by 20 percent for low-income students 
over the course of their K-12 schooling results in greater high school 
completion, higher levels of educational attainment, increased lifetime 
earnings, and reduced adult poverty.
  The recent Office of Civil Rights survey points to some gaps that we 
need to address, including that Black, Latino, American Indian, Native 
Alaskan students, and English learners attend schools with higher 
concentrations of inexperienced teachers; nationwide, one in five high 
schools lacks a school counselor; and between 10 and 25 percent of high 
schools across the nation do not offer more than one of the core 
courses in the typical sequence of high school math and science, such 
as Algebra I and II, geometry, biology, and chemistry.
  The CORE Act will require State accountability plans and State and 
district report cards to include measures on how well the State and 
districts provide the core resources for learning to their students. 
These resources include: high quality instructional teams, including 
licensed and profession-ready teachers, principals, school librarians, 
counselors, and education support staff;
  Rigorous academic standards and curricula that lead to college and 
career readiness by high school graduation and are accessible to all 
students, including students with disabilities and English learners; 
equitable and instructionally appropriate class sizes; up-to-date 
instructional materials, technology, and supplies; effective school 
library programs; school facilities and technology, including 
physically and environmentally sound buildings and well-equipped 
instructions space, including laboratories and libraries; specialized 
instructional support teams, such as counselors, social workers, 
nurses, and other qualified professionals; and effective family and 
community engagements programs.
  These are things that parents in well-resourced communities expect 
and demand. We should do no less for children in economically 
disadvantaged communities. We should do no less for minority students 
or English learners or students with disabilities.
  Under the CORE Act, states that fail to make progress on resource 
equity would not be eligible to apply for competitive grants authorized 
under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. For school districts 
identified for improvement, the state would have to identify gaps in 
access to the core resources for learning and develop an action plan in 
partnership with the local school district to address those gaps.
  The CORE Act is supported by a diverse group of organizations, 
including the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, 
American Federation of Teachers, American Library Association, First 
Focus Campaign for Children, League of United Latin American Citizens, 
National Education Association, Opportunity Action, and the Coalition 
for Community Schools. Working with this strong group of advocates and 
my colleagues in the Senate and in the House, it is my hope that we can 
build the support to include the CORE Act in the reauthorization of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I urge my colleagues to join us 
by cosponsoring this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CARDIN (by request):
  S. 2560. A bill to authorize the United States Fish and Wildlife 
Service to seek compensation for injuries to trust resources and use 
those funds to restore, replace, or acquire equivalent resources, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a bill I am 
introducing that will provide the Department of Interior the necessary 
and appropriate authority to seek compensation from responsible parties 
who cause injury to public resources managed by the United States Fish 
and Wildlife Service like National Wildlife Refuges, National Fish 
Hatcheries, and other Service facilities. The proposal would allow the 
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, USFWS, to recover costs for 
assessing injury and to restore, replace, or acquire equivalent 
resources without further Congressional appropriations. The National 
Park Service, NPS, under the Park System Resource Protection Act 
PSRPA--16 U.S.C. 19jj, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, NOAA, under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, NMSA--
16 U.S.C. 1431, currently have similar authorities and its time USWFS 
were afforded this authority as well.
  The Service Resource Protection Act, RPA, would enhance the 
protection and restoration of USFWS resources found on National 
Wildlife Refuges, National Fish Hatcheries and other Service lands, 
should injury or harm occur. The RPA is a proposed statute that 
specifically protects all living and non-living resources within 
Service lands and waters. Any funds collected to compensate for injury 
or destruction of Service resources would be used to rectify that 
specific harm without further Congressional appropriation. Under this 
authority, damages could be used to reimburse assessment costs; prevent 
or minimize resource loss; abate or minimize the risk of loss; monitor 
ongoing effects, and/or restore, replace, or acquire resources 
equivalent to those injured or destroyed.
  Currently, USFWS Service manages more than 150 million acres of 
National Wildlife Refuge lands and 71 National Fish Hatcheries. The sum 
of USFWS's acres is greater than those lands and water resources 
managed by the NPS

[[Page S4161]]

and NOAA combined. USFWS has significant land based management 
responsibilities that are quite different from NOAA, in addition to 
marine and estuarine areas USFWS manages. Compared to National Parks, 
Refuges allow for a broader range of activities--such as hunting, 
fishing, and wildlife dependent activities. The large size of the 
USFWS's resource portfolio and the unique and varied stressors on these 
resources makes it imperative that the USFWS have the appropriate 
authority to seek damages from responsible parties who degrade or 
destroy USFWS resources and property.
  Unlike NPS and NOAA, USFWS does not have the authority to recover 
damages, e.g., monetary compensation, from responsible parties to 
assess and restore injured resources without prior Congressional 
appropriation. Today, when Service resources are damaged or destroyed, 
the costs for repair and restoration of these resources falls upon the 
appropriated budget for the affected Refuge, often at the expense of 
other Refuge programs. Competing priorities can leave Service resources 
languishing until the refuge obtains appropriations from Congress to 
address the injury. This may result in more intensive injuries, higher 
costs, and long-term degradation of publicly-owned Service resources.
  When bad actors harm public resources managed by USFWS the 
responsibility for remedying the problems caused by bad actors should 
not fall to the taxpayer to solve. More over the fact that currently to 
repair damages to USFWS resources may require earmarks in the budget to 
ensure these problems are resolved is doubly unfair in that such budget 
requirements take resources away from other worthwhile projects that 
are unrelated to fixing the problems caused by irresponsible actors. It 
is patently unfair for taxpayers to shoulder the burden of solving the 
mistakes and negligence of others. The public expects that Refuge 
resources--and the broad range of activities they support--will be 
available for future generations. Our bill ensures that persons 
responsible for harm, not taxpayers, should pay for any injury they 
cause.
  While the Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration program 
established under the Oil Pollution Act and CERCLA establishes a unique 
process for the USFWS to seek damages in limited circumstances 
involving oil spills and or the release of hazardous substances. These 
laws do not apply to situations when toxics materials and regular solid 
waste are dumped on or near a refuge that are not formally defined as 
hazardous substances and the USFWS is not authorized to recover funds 
to address injury from the responsible party in these situations under 
existing statute. Additionally, for injuries caused by actions or 
mechanisms other than a `spill' of oil or release of a hazardous 
substance, such as illegal cutting of vegetation, destruction or 
vandalism of real property and facilities, e.g., kiosks, visitor 
centers, fire and abandoned debris, the USFWS has no statutory 
mechanism to recover costs for assessing and restoring the public's 
resources. In contrast, NPS and NOAA have statutory authority to 
recover civil damages for these types of injuries, and the funds go to 
the agencies for assessment and restoration.
  USFWS manages 556 National Wildlife Refuges and 38 Wetland Management 
Districts, covering over 150 million acres, and accounting for 25 
percent of public lands and waters managed by the Department of the 
Interior. The agency is also responsible for 71 National Fish 
Hatcheries and a National Conservation Training Center, which would 
also be covered by the proposed legislation. Management of the Refuge 
System prioritizes wildlife conservation and habitat management, but 
encourages the American public to enjoy the benefits of these lands. In 
the organic legislation, the National Wildlife Refuge System 
Improvement Act of 1997, activities such as hunting, fishing, 
photography, wildlife observation, environmental education and 
interpretation were identified as priority public uses on Refuges.
  Found in every U.S. State and territory, and within an hour's drive 
of most metropolitan areas, National Wildlife Refuges: attract 
approximately 45 million visitors each year; protect clean air and safe 
drinking water for nearby communities; protect more than 700 bird 
species, 220 mammals, 250 reptiles and amphibians, and 1,000 fish 
species; offers hunting on 322 refuges and fishing on 272 refuges; and 
generates more than $1.7 billion for local economies, creates nearly 
27,000 U.S. jobs annually, provides $543 million in employment income, 
and adds more than $185 million in tax revenue.
  The fiscal year 2014 appropriated budget for the Refuge System is 
approximately $72 million dollars, but it is estimated that the current 
operations and maintenance, O&M, backlog tops $3 billion dollars. The 
National Fish Hatchery System has a backlog in excess of $300 million. 
Because the Service does not have statutory authority to pursue 
recovery of damages from responsible parties, the cost of replacing or 
restoring injured Refuge or Hatchery resources typically gets included 
in the O&M project list, and requires tax-payer funding to fix. This 
legislation would allow the Service to recover damages directly from 
the person or persons that harmed the resource, thus removing this 
additional financial burden from taxpayers.
  The legislation is not intended to generate revenue for the Service; 
instead, it aims to be budget neutral. Any funds collected to 
compensate for resource injuries will be used to rectify that specific 
injury without the need for Congressional appropriation. Under this 
authority, damages would be required to reimburse assessment costs; 
prevent or minimize resource loss; abate or minimize the risk of loss; 
monitor ongoing effects, and/or restore, replace, or acquire resources 
equivalent to those injured or destroyed.
  By way of example, NPS has recovered damages on cases ranging from 
$125.00--$10 million dollars for assessment and restoration of injuries 
to resources on their lands. However, a direct comparison between USFWS 
and NPS is of limited value, since the two agencies have dissimilar 
missions and allow for different activities on their lands. The Refuge 
and Hatchery systems also manage many more individual land units and 
twice the acreage of the NPS.
  USFWS administers several laws, such as the Migratory Bird Treaty 
Act, that provide for penalties and fees as part of civil or criminal 
proceedings. The RPA is a civil authority that would allow the Service 
to recover compensation in the form of monetary damages for costs 
associated with assessment and restoration of injured resources. It is 
intended to make the public whole: it is not meant to be punitive 
towards the person or persons who caused the injury. As part of the 
Annual Uniform Crime Report, AUCR, Service Law Enforcement has 
identified several categories of crimes in which they have prosecuted 
individuals for criminal violations and received associated fines. 
These fines are remitted to the U.S. Treasury and do not provide any 
means to assess injury or recover restoration costs associated with 
repairing or replacing resources. The Service has used Tort law to 
recover damages on occasion, but many of our cases do not meet the 
dollar threshold for pursuing a civil lawsuit by the Department of 
Justice. As a result, even though cases may be criminally prosecuted, 
most of them are not pursued as a potential civil claim.
  However, if the Service had RPA authority, we could use a civil 
process to recover costs for assessment and restoration. The AUCR 
provides many examples of areas where the Service could use the civil 
authority under RPA in conjunction with other criminal procedures. In 
2010, 39 arson offenses were reported on Service lands. Monetary loss 
to the government resulting from these cases totaled almost $850,000, 
but neither restoration funds, nor repair of the public's resources 
resulted from these prosecutions. Similarly, over 2,300 vandalism 
offenses, totaling $314,000 in monetary loss were documented. Other 
reported offenses number in the thousands and could lead to recovery of 
damages for many field stations: These include, illegal off-road use 
(n=2,234), trespass (n = 8,163), and other natural resource violations 
(n = 4,628). In these instances, the Service must choose between using 
tax-payer funded, appropriations to pay for assessing, repairing, 
replacing or restoring structures, habitat and other resources injured 
by the responsible party or for other important Refuge needs.

[[Page S4162]]

  It is time to shed taxpayers' cost burden of repairs and restoration 
due to damage caused by the unlawful behavior of negligent individuals 
and give the USFWS the authority it need to collect damages from those 
responsible to do the work to right what's wrong. I urge my colleagues 
to support this bill.
  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. 2560

       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 ``United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service Resource Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Damages.--The term ``damages'' means--
       (A) compensation for--
       (i)(I) the cost of replacing, restoring, or acquiring the 
     equivalent of a system resource; and
       (II) the value of any significant loss of use of a system 
     resource, pending--

       (aa) restoration or replacement of the system resource; or
       (bb) the acquisition of an equivalent resource; or

       (ii) the value of a system resource, if the system resource 
     cannot be replaced or restored; and
       (B) the cost of any relevant damage assessment carried out 
     pursuant to section 4(c).
       (2) Response cost.--The term ``response cost'' means the 
     cost of any action carried out by the Secretary--
       (A) to prevent, minimize, or abate destruction or loss of, 
     or injury to, a system resource;
       (B) to abate or minimize the imminent risk of such 
     destruction, loss, or injury; or
       (C) to monitor the ongoing effects of any incident causing 
     such destruction, loss, or injury.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (4) System resource.--The term ``system resource'' means 
     any living, nonliving, historical, cultural, or archeological 
     resource that is located within the boundaries of--
       (A) a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
       (B) a unit of the National Fish Hatchery System; or
       (C) any other land managed by the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service, including any land managed cooperatively 
     with any other Federal or State agency.

     SEC. 3. LIABILITY.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (c), any individual 
     or entity that destroys, causes the loss of, or injures any 
     system resource, or that causes the Secretary to carry out 
     any action to prevent, minimize, or abate destruction or loss 
     of, or injuries or risk to, any system resource, shall be 
     liable to the United States for any response costs or damages 
     resulting from the destruction, loss, or injury.
       (b) Liability in Rem.--Any instrumentality (including a 
     vessel, vehicle, aircraft, or other equipment or mechanism) 
     that destroys, causes the loss of, or injures any system 
     resource, or that causes the Secretary to carry out any 
     action to prevent, minimize, or abate destruction or loss of, 
     or injury or risk to, a system resource shall be liable in 
     rem to the United States for any response costs or damages 
     resulting from the destruction, loss, or injury, to the same 
     extent that an individual or entity is liable under 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Defenses.--An individual or entity shall not be liable 
     under this section, if the individual or entity can establish 
     that--
       (1) the destruction or loss of, or injury to, the system 
     resource was caused solely by an act of God or an act of war; 
     or
       (2)(A) the individual or entity exercised due care; and
       (B) the destruction or loss of, or injury to, the system 
     resource was caused solely by an act or omission of a third 
     party, other than an employee or agent of the individual or 
     entity.
       (d) Scope.--The liability established by this section shall 
     be in addition to any other liability arising under Federal 
     or State law.

     SEC. 4. ACTIONS.

       (a) Civil Actions for Response Costs and Damages.--The 
     Attorney General, on request of the Secretary, may commence a 
     civil action in the United States district court of 
     appropriate jurisdiction against any individual, entity, or 
     instrumentality that may be liable under section 3 for 
     response costs or damages.
       (b) Administrative Actions for Response Costs and 
     Damages.--
       (1) Action by secretary.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary, 
     after making a finding described in subparagraph (B), may 
     consider, compromise, and settle a claim for response costs 
     and damages if the claim has not been referred to the 
     Attorney General under subsection (a).
       (B) Description of findings.--A finding referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) is a finding that--
       (i) destruction or loss of, or injury to, a system resource 
     has occurred; or
       (ii) such destruction, loss, or injury would occur absent 
     an action by the Secretary to prevent, minimize, or abate the 
     destruction, loss, or injury.
       (2) Requirement.--In any case in which the total amount to 
     be recovered in a civil action under subsection (a) may 
     exceed $500,000 (excluding interest), a claim may be 
     compromised and settled under paragraph (1) only with the 
     prior written approval of the Attorney General.
       (c) Response Actions, Assessments of Damages, and 
     Injunctive Relief.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may carry out all necessary 
     actions (including making a request to the Attorney General 
     to seek injunctive relief)--
       (A) to prevent, minimize, or abate destruction or loss of, 
     or injury to, a system resource; or
       (B) to abate or minimize the imminent risk of such 
     destruction, loss, or injury.
       (2) Assessment and monitoring.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary may assess and monitor the 
     destruction or loss of, or injury to, any system resource for 
     purposes of paragraph (1).
       (B) Judicial review.--Any determination or assessment of 
     damage to a system resource carried out under subparagraph 
     (A) shall be subject to judicial review under subchapter II 
     of chapter 5, and chapter 7, of title 5, United States Code 
     (commonly known as the ``Administrative Procedure Act''), on 
     the basis of the administrative record developed by the 
     Secretary.

     SEC. 5. USE OF RECOVERED AMOUNTS.

       (a) In General.--An amount equal to the total amount of the 
     response costs and damages recovered by the Secretary under 
     this Act and any amounts recovered by the Federal Government 
     under any provision of Federal, State, or local law 
     (including regulations) or otherwise as a result of the 
     destruction or loss of, or injury to, any system resource 
     shall be made available to the Secretary, without further 
     appropriation, for use in accordance with subsection (b).
       (b) Use.--The Secretary may use amounts made available 
     under subsection (a) only, in accordance with applicable 
     law--
       (1) to reimburse response costs and damage assessments 
     carried out pursuant to this Act by the Secretary or such 
     other Federal agency as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate;
       (2) to restore, replace, or acquire the equivalent of a 
     system resource that was destroyed, lost, or injured; or
       (3) to monitor and study system resources.

     SEC. 6. DONATIONS.

       (a) In General.--In addition to any other authority to 
     accept donations, the Secretary may accept donations of money 
     or services for expenditure or use to meet expected, 
     immediate, or ongoing response costs and damages.
       (b) Timing.--A donation described in subsection (a) may be 
     expended or used at any time after acceptance of the 
     donation, without further action by Congress.

     SEC. 7. TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE 
                   ASSESSMENT AND RESTORATION FUND.

       The matter under the heading ``Natural resource damage 
     assessment and restoration fund'' under the heading ``United 
     states fish and wildlife service'' of title I of the 
     Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1994 (43 U.S.C. 1474b-1), is amended by 
     striking ``Provided, That'' and all that follows through 
     ``activities.'' and inserting the following: ``Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, any amounts 
     appropriated or credited during fiscal year 1992 or any 
     fiscal year thereafter may be transferred to any account 
     (including through a payment to any Federal or non-Federal 
     trustee) to carry out a negotiated legal settlement or other 
     legal action for a restoration activity under the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the Oil 
     Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), the Act of 
     July 27, 1990 (16 U.S.C. 19jj et seq.), or the United States 
     Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Protection Act, or for any 
     damage assessment activity: Provided further, That sums 
     provided by any individual or entity before or after the date 
     of enactment of this Act shall remain available until 
     expended and shall not be limited to monetary payments, but 
     may include stocks, bonds, or other personal or real 
     property, which may be retained, liquidated, or otherwise 
     disposed of by the Secretary for the restoration of injured 
     resources or to conduct any new damage assessment 
     activity.''.

[[Page S4163]]



                          ____________________