[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]]
____________________