[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 142 (Wednesday, November 19, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6149-S6157]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself and Mr. Schatz):
  S. 2940. A bill to provide for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse 
gas emission fees; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here now for the, I guess, 80th 
time in my weekly series of speeches about carbon pollution to ask the 
Senate and Congress to wake up to the growing threat from climate 
change, and today I am also announcing the introduction of the American 
Opportunity Carbon Fee Act.
  Carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is changing the atmosphere 
and the oceans. We see it everywhere. We see it in storm-damaged homes 
and flooded cities. We see it in drought-stricken farms and raging 
wildfires. We see it in fish disappearing from warming and acidifying 
waters. We see it in shifting habitats and migrating contagions.
  All of these things we see carry costs--real economic dollars-and-
cents costs--to homeowners, to business owners, and to taxpayers. That 
cost is described as the social cost of carbon. It is the damage that 
people and communities suffer from carbon pollution and climate change. 
None of those costs from carbon pollution are factored into the price 
of the coal or the oil or the natural gas that releases this carbon. 
The fossil fuel companies that sell and burn those products have taken 
those costs and offloaded them onto society--onto the rest of us.
  That is not fair. If you rake your lawn, you don't get to dump all 
the leaves over your neighbor's fence and leave him or her the problem 
of cleaning up your leaves. If you are located on a river, you don't 
get to dump your garbage in the river and leave it to the downstream 
property owners to clean up your mess. Yet the big carbon polluters 
transfer the costs--all those costs of climate change--onto everyone 
else--all the rest of us.
  The U.S. Government has done some estimating about what that social 
cost of carbon pollution is and their estimate is that it is around $40 
per ton of carbon dioxide emitted, and that that amount rises over time 
as carbon pollution creates more and more harm and havoc. So a climbing 
$40 per ton is the cost, but the current effective price on carbon 
pollution is zero.
  By making their carbon pollution free, we subsidize fossil fuel 
companies to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars annually. By 
making their carbon pollution free, we actually rig the game, giving 
polluters an unfair advantage over newer and cleaner technologies. It 
is a racket. It is a form of cheating. And corporate polluters love it 
because it gives them advantage, and they fight tooth and nail to 
protect it in this body. But it is wrong.
  As University of Chicago economics professor Michael Greenstone 
recently explained, this concept--that offloading social costs is wrong 
and that there should be a proper price on carbon--is very widely 
accepted. Here is what he said:

       The media always reports that there's near consensus among 
     scientists about the fact that human activity impacts climate 
     change. What does not receive as much attention is that 
     there's even greater consensus among economists, starting 
     from Milton Friedman and moving into the most left-wing 
     economists that you could find, that the obvious correct 
     public policy solution to this is to put a price on carbon. 
     It's not controversial.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, 
at the conclusion of my remarks, an article from The Economist 
magazine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. The economics editor of The Economist magazine--which 
is certainly no hotbed of left wing sentiment--Ryan Avent, has posted a 
comment on climate policy and his question is: ``Do economists all 
favour a carbon tax?'' He says:

       The economic solution is to tax the externality--

  That is the offloaded cost.

       --so that the social cost of carbon is reflected in the 
     individual consumer's decision. The carbon tax is an elegant 
     solution to a complicated problem.

  So today I am introducing this bill to put a price on carbon 
emissions. It is simple. It will require the polluters to pay a per-ton 
fee for their pollution and all of the revenue generated by those 
payments will go back to the American people.
  I want to thank Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii for cosponsoring this 
measure. He has been a great colleague on environmental issues and on 
our discussion regarding climate change. The bill that we introduce 
today establishes an economy-wide fee on carbon

[[Page S6150]]

dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, tracking that social cost 
of carbon, starting at $42 per ton and going up by 2 percent per year, 
plus inflation.
  We know how much carbon dioxide each unit of coal, oil, and natural 
gas produces, so we assess the fee on fossil fuel producers, 
processors, and importers. That makes it simple to administer. The 
whole bill is only 29 pages long.
  For other varieties of greenhouse gases and nonfossil fuel sources of 
CO2, we assess our fees only on the very largest emitters--
those emitting more than 25,000 tons a year. This is the same universe 
of companies that we already require to monitor and report on their 
carbon emissions.
  A significant greenhouse gas concern is the methane that escapes 
throughout production and distribution. To address this, we require 
annual reports on methane leakage and direct the Treasury Secretary to 
adjust the fees on fossil fuels to account for that leakage. This fee 
will promote innovation and help further reduce carbon emissions.
  Fossil fuel companies that capture and sequester or use carbon 
dioxide or innovate new ways to encapsulate it in materials or products 
will get credits to offset the carbon fee.
  We also take care to ensure that American manufacturers are not put 
at a competitive disadvantage globally. Imports from nations that don't 
price emissions will face a tariff that the Treasury Secretary is 
authorized to impose at the border. Likewise, the Secretary is 
authorized to rebate American producers on their exports.
  I would note one thing. Since regulation is usually a response to 
market failure, a well-designed carbon fee would also properly open a 
conversation about which and, indeed, whether carbon regulations are 
still needed. A carbon fee by itself is much more efficient and 
predictable than complex regulations, and I am open to that 
conversation.
  That is it. It is that simple. Make the polluters pay the full costs 
of their products; end the cheating; level the playing field for other 
forms of energy, such as wind and solar, to compete fairly; keep the 
fee mechanism simple; and maintain a border adjustment that keeps 
American goods competitive. Twenty-nine pages.
  On the flip side, the carbon fee will generate significant new 
Federal revenue. The technicians are still working on the official 
revenue estimate for the bill, but it should be at least $1.5 trillion 
and perhaps more than $2 trillion over the 10-year budget periods we 
work with in Congress and on the Budget Committee.
  Whatever the exact number is, all of it should be returned to the 
American people. So the bill establishes an American opportunity trust 
fund to hold the revenue and return it to the American people. This 
could include through tax cuts, through student loan debt relief, 
through increased Social Security benefits for seniors, through 
transition assistance to workers in fossil fuel industries, or even 
just a direct dividend back to the American family. I am looking 
forward to deciding with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle what 
is the best way to return this revenue, but I do believe every dollar 
should go back to the American people in some form. To use economic 
jargon, this should be revenue neutral.
  This is one example to consider, just a hypothetical: What could we 
do? We could cut the corporate tax rate in America from 35 percent to 
30 percent. That has been a bipartisan goal for a long time. It was 
part of Romney's Presidential campaign. We could accomplish it with 
this measure.
  We would have enough money left to go to the payroll tax and for 
every worker rebate the first $500 they paid in payroll tax. So every 
American worker who paid more than $500 in payroll tax would get a $500 
check to spend on whatever they wanted. The first tax reduction at the 
corporate level uses about $600 billion to offset. This uses about $700 
billion to offset.
  Third, we could add to that a boost to the EITC--the earned income 
tax credit--which supports many American families at the very low end 
of the economic spectrum. We could do that by literally hundreds of 
dollars a year for millions of lower income families. Again, there has 
been bipartisan support for expanding the earned income tax credit.
  Three important goals, all reducing taxes or adding to a tax credit--
all should have strong bipartisan support.
  The American Opportunity Carbon Fee Act has revenue that could make 
our companies more competitive, could give every single worker a tax 
rebate, and could boost benefits for struggling low-income families.
  Last month the Des Moines Register ran a column titled `` `Carbon 
tax' would help Iowa, planet.'' The column said this:

       The United States could take the lead by acting on its own, 
     watch its economy grow, and let the rest of the world catch 
     up.
       In the process, the United States would gain mastery of the 
     sustainable-energy technology that will drive economic growth 
     in the future.

  I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record at 
the end of my statement.
  George W. Bush's Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson gave the same 
message earlier this year, saying:

       A tax on carbon emissions will unleash a wave of innovation 
     to develop technologies, lower the costs of clean energy and 
     create jobs as we and other nations develop new energy 
     products and infrastructure.

  Emphasizing that, coincidentally, is an article in today's New York 
Times headed ``A Carbon Tax Could Bolster Green Energy.'' As we all 
know, green energy jobs are exploding in this country, and we need more 
of them.
  Treasury Secretary Paulson continued:

       Republicans must not shrink from this issue. Risk 
     management is a conservative principle.

  Secretary Paulson is not alone. Conservative figures such as George 
Shultz, who was Secretary of State under President Reagan, emphatically 
support a carbon fee as the best way to address carbon pollution.
  Art Laffer, one of the architects of President Reagan's economic 
plan, had this to say about a carbon tax and related payroll tax cut:

       I think that would be very good for the economy and as an 
     adjunct, it would reduce also carbon emissions into the 
     environment.

  I ask unanimous consent that a 2013 New York Times op-ed be printed 
in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. In this New York Times op-ed, Bill Ruckelshaus, 
Christine Todd Whitman, Lee Thomas, and William Reilly wrote:

       A market-based approach, like a carbon tax, would be the 
     best path to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.

  I know the big carbon polluters want this issue ignored. I know that. 
They want to squeeze one more quarter, one more year of public subsidy 
for their product from the rest of us. From their point of view, lunch 
is good when someone else is picking up the tab. But notwithstanding 
the power of the big carbon polluters, I still believe this is a 
problem we can solve.
  Not long ago this would have been a bipartisan bill. Not long ago 
leading voices on the Republican side agreed with Democrats that the 
dangers of climate change were real. Not long ago leading Republican 
voices agreed that carbon emissions were the culprit. And it was not 
long ago that leading Republican voices agreed that Congress had a 
responsibility to act. One Republican Senator won his party's 
nomination for President on a solid climate change platform. Other 
Republican colleagues in the Senate introduced, cosponsored, or voted 
for meaningful climate legislation in the past. Some of the proposals 
were market-based, revenue-neutral solutions aligned with Republican 
free market values, just like my bill today.
  The junior Senator from Arizona--a Republican--was an original 
cosponsor of a carbon fee bill when he served in the House of 
Representatives. That proposal, introduced with former Republican 
Congressman Bob Inglis, would have placed a $15-per-ton fee on carbon 
pollution in 2010, more than $20 in 2015, and $100 in 2040. At the 
time, our colleague from Arizona had this to say:

       If there's one economic axiom, it's that if you want less 
     of something, you tax it. Clearly, it's in our interest to 
     move away from carbon.

  We simply need conscientious Republicans and Democrats to work 
together in good faith on a platform of fact and common sense. We know 
this can be done because it is being done.

[[Page S6151]]

  At the end of a speech about the American Revolution, the historian 
David McCullough was asked by someone in the audience why it was that 
our Founding Fathers had the courage to pledge their lives, their 
fortunes, and their sacred honor to the cause of independence when 
signing the Declaration was signing their own death warrant. He had a 
very simple answer. He said: It was a courageous time.
  Well, clearly in courageous times Americans have done far more than 
simply stand up to polluters to serve the interests of this great 
Republic. It only takes courage to make this a courageous time too.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   [From The Register, Oct. 4, 2014]

                  `Carbon Tax' Would Help Iowa, Planet

                           (By Richard Doak)

       Six years ago, the Canadian province of British Columbia 
     decided to go it alone in fighting climate change. It imposed 
     a tax on fossil fuels--coal gasoline, diesel fuel, propane 
     and natural gas.
       By most accounts, the ``carbon tax'' has been a success. It 
     made fossil fuels more expensive, so British Columbians began 
     to conserve them and use them more efficiently. Revenue from 
     the carbon tax allows other taxes to be reduced, so the 
     province enjoys the lowest personal income tax rates in 
     Canada and some of the lowest corporate taxes in the 
     developed world.
       Contrary to fears, the carbon tax did not cause the economy 
     of the province to collapse. Economic growth is slightly 
     better than in the rest of Canada, and the forward-looking 
     energy policy gives British Columbia a reputation as a world 
     leader in green entrepreneurship.
       Why can't Iowa be like that?
       Indeed, Iowa should be like that, and circumstances might 
     be right for Iowa to become the first American state to 
     employ a full-fledged carbon tax.
       Iowa and other states already have partial carbon taxes. We 
     pay them at the pump when we buy gasoline or diesel fuel.
       In Iowa, all gasoline and diesel fuel tax revenue is 
     earmarked for highway construction, maintenance and 
     administration. Paying the gas tax is how motorists pay for 
     the bridges and highways.
       After the November election, when candidates are no longer 
     afraid to talk about taxes, a consensus will probably develop 
     to raise Iowa's motor fuel taxes. The current gasoline tax of 
     21 cents per gallon (19 cents for ethanol blend) and diesel 
     tax of 22.5 cents bring in about $450 million but leave the 
     state an estimated $215 million short of what's needed for 
     highways every year.
       Closing that gap would require raising motor fuel taxes by 
     about 10 cents per gallon.
       Instead, why not abolish motor fuel taxes and replace them 
     with a carbon tax?
       A carbon tax would apply to all fossil fuels, not just 
     gasoline and diesel fuel. The tax on each fuel would be based 
     on its carbon content. Carbon-dense coal would be taxed more 
     heavily than relatively carbon-light natural gas.
       The carbon tax on gasoline and diesel fuel could be 
     calibrated to bring in about the same amount of revenue as 
     the existing motor fuel tax. Additional revenue to close the 
     highway-funding gap could come from the carbon tax paid on 
     coal and natural gas used to generate electricity. This would 
     be a way for electric car owners to begin paying their share 
     of highway maintenance.
       Electric cars contribute less for highway maintenance than 
     gasoline- or diesel-burning vehicles. (Electric cars don't 
     pay gasoline tax, but they do pay license fees and use 
     taxes.) In the future, if electric vehicles become 
     ubiquitous, it will be essential to have some source of 
     highway money beyond the gasoline tax. Having a carbon tax 
     would put Iowa ahead of the game of paying for roads in an 
     electric-car future.
       Additional revenue from a carbon tax, beyond that needed 
     for roads, could be used to lower other taxes, as in British 
     Columbia. Since the biggest burden of a carbon tax would fall 
     on low-income people, reductions or credits for low-income 
     people should be the first priority. Lowering for abolishing 
     the corporation tax, as an incentive for businesses to locate 
     in Iowa, might be the second choice.
       The idea of a carbon tax is to use market forces to reduce 
     the amount of carbon dioxide spewed into the atmosphere when 
     fossil fuels are burned. Economists use the term carbon 
     pricing. When the price of something goes up, people use less 
     of it. A carbon tax is intended to raise the price of fossil 
     fuels enough to discourage consumption as well as to create 
     an incentive to find alternatives.
       As leader in biofuels and wind turbines, Iowa should be for 
     anything that incentivizes the switch to alternatives.
       Perhaps Iowans should even be cheering for a carbon tax to 
     be imposed nationally, because, among the states, Iowa may be 
     one of the best positioned to benefit from it.
       Of course, a national carbon tax is off the table as long 
     as Congress is full of climate-change deniers who are 
     beholden to the fossil-fuel industries. But, outside of 
     Congress, the carbon tax and other carbon-dioxide-reducing 
     strategies appear to be gaining credibility.
       A number of major corporations, banks and institutions have 
     begun to question the conventional thinking that the economy 
     would suffer if carbon dioxide emissions were curbed. Most 
     recently, the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, a 
     group of heavyweight international leaders and economists, 
     issued a report showing that reducing carbon emissions would 
     cost the economy very little and might actually stimulate 
     economic growth. Other research published by the 
     International Monetary Fund suggests that carbon taxes, 
     rather than being a drag on an economy, can be a benefit.
       It also appears that cutting carbon emissions can help a 
     country's economy even if other countries don't go along. 
     British Columbia has shown that a state can go it alone 
     without other states.
       Nationally, the United States is waiting around for some 
     big international agreement that will require all countries 
     to reduce their emissions in unison. That shouldn't be 
     necessary. The United States could take the lead by acting on 
     its own, watch its economy grow, and let the rest of the 
     world catch up.
       In the process, the United States would gain mastery of the 
     sustainable-energy technology that will drive economic growth 
     in the future.
       Sadly, the odds of the president and Congress acting that 
     boldly on climate change are roughly nil. But maybe the 
     little state of Iowa, out here in the heart of America, could 
     nudge the nation in the right direction by setting an example 
     on its own.
                                  ____


               [From the New York Times, August 1, 2013]

                  A Republican Case for Climate Action

   (By William D. Ruckelshaus, Lee M. Thomas, William K. Reilly and 
                        Christine Todd Whitman)

       Each of us took turns over the past 43 years running the 
     Environmental Protection Agency. We served Republican 
     presidents, but we have a message that transcends political 
     affiliation: the United States must move now on substantive 
     steps to curb climate change, at home and internationally.
       There is no longer any credible scientific debate about the 
     basic facts: our world continues to warm, with the last 
     decade the hottest in modern records, and the deep ocean 
     warming faster than the earth's atmosphere. Sea level is 
     rising. Arctic Sea ice is melting years faster than 
     projected.
       The costs of inaction are undeniable. The lines of 
     scientific evidence grow only stronger and more numerous. And 
     the window of time remaining to act is growing smaller: delay 
     could mean that warming becomes ``locked in.''
       A market-based approach, like a carbon tax, would be the 
     best path to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, but that is 
     unachievable in the current political gridlock in Washington. 
     Dealing with this political reality, President Obama's June 
     climate action plan lays out achievable actions that would 
     deliver real progress. He will use his executive powers to 
     require reductions in the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by 
     the nation's power plants and spur increased investment in 
     clean energy technology, which is inarguably the path we must 
     follow to ensure a strong economy along with a livable 
     climate.
       The president also plans to use his regulatory power to 
     limit the powerful warming chemicals known as 
     hydrofluorocarbons and encourage the United States to join 
     with other nations to amend the Montreal Protocol to phase 
     out these chemicals. The landmark international treaty, which 
     took effect in 1989, already has been hugely successful in 
     solving the ozone problem.
       Rather than argue against his proposals, our leaders in 
     Congress should endorse them and start the overdue debate 
     about what bigger steps are needed and how to achieve them--
     domestically and internationally.
       As administrators of the E.P.A. under Presidents Richard M. 
     Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George Bush and George W. Bush, we held 
     fast to common-sense conservative principles--protecting the 
     health of the American people, working with the best 
     technology available and trusting in the innovation of 
     American business and in the market to find the best 
     solutions for the least cost.
       That approach helped us tackle major environmental 
     challenges to our nation and the world: the pollution of our 
     rivers, dramatized when the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland 
     caught fire in 1969; the hole in the ozone layer; and the 
     devastation wrought by acid rain.
       The solutions we supported worked, although more must be 
     done. Our rivers no longer burn, and their health continues 
     to improve. The United States led the world when nations came 
     together to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals. Acid rain 
     diminishes each year, thanks to a pioneering, market-based 
     emissions-trading system adopted under the first President 
     Bush in 1990. And despite critics' warnings, our economy has 
     continued to grow.
       Climate change puts all our progress and our successes at 
     risk. If we could articulate one framework for successful 
     governance, perhaps it should be this: When confronted by a 
     problem, deal with it. Look at the facts,

[[Page S6152]]

     cut through the extraneous, devise a workable solution and 
     get it done.
       We can have both a strong economy and a livable climate. 
     All parties know that we need both. The rest of the 
     discussion is either detail, which we can resolve, or 
     purposeful delay, which we should not tolerate.
       Mr. Obama's plan is just a start. More will be required. 
     But we must continue efforts to reduce the climate-altering 
     pollutants that threaten our planet. The only uncertainty 
     about our warming world is how bad the changes will get, and 
     how soon. What is most clear is that there is no time to 
     waste.
                                  ____


                  [From the Economist, Sept. 19, 2011]

                 Do Economists All Favour A Carbon Tax?

                          (By R.A. Washington)

       Last week, a Twitter conversation broke out among a few 
     economists concerning whether any serious economists opposed 
     a carbon tax. No, concluded the tweeters, but Tyler Cowen 
     begged to differ. Mr. Cowen writes that he personally favours 
     a carbon tax but can imagine a number of principled reasons 
     other economists might not.
       Why would we expect economists to support a carbon tax? Its 
     very close to the economic ideal. Global warming is a 
     phenomenon associated with emissions of greenhouse gases over 
     and above natural cycles--largely those resulting from the 
     burning of carbon fuels humans have dug up out of the ground. 
     We expect normal economic activity to maximise social good 
     because each individual balances costs and benefits when 
     making economic decisions. Carbon emissions represent a 
     negative externality. When an individual takes an economic 
     action with some fossil-fuel energy content--whether running 
     a petrol-powered lawnmower, turning on a light, or buying a 
     bunch of grapes--that person balances their personal benefits 
     against the costs of the action. The cost to them of the 
     climate change resulting from the carbon content of that 
     decisions, however, is effectively zero and is rationally 
     ignored. The decision to ignore carbon content, when 
     aggregated over the whole of humanity, generates huge carbon 
     dioxide emissions and rising global temperatures.
       The economic solution is to tax the externality so that the 
     social cost of carbon is reflected in the individual 
     consumers decision. The carbon tax is an elegant solution to 
     a complicated problem, which allows the everyday business of 
     consumer decision making to do the work of emission 
     reduction. It's by no means the only economically sensible 
     policy response to the threat of climate change, but it is 
     the one we'd expect economists to embrace.
       Mr. Cowen argues for caution on this point for several 
     reasons. A carbon tax will be less effective if it's not 
     universally applied, potentially leading to carbon leakage to 
     countries with looser environmental rules. He worries that 
     where carbon fees have been applied innovation has not been 
     quick to respond. He fears that good substitutes for carbon 
     fuels don't exist, especially in the transport sector, and 
     worries that higher fuel prices might harm the economy. He 
     suggests that a ``green-energy subsidies first'' policy might 
     make more sense, and he talks about distributional and rent-
     seeking costs of the policy.
       I think the weakness of these arguments is telling, and 
     it's not surprising that Mr. Cowen continues to support a 
     carbon tax. What if a carbon price doesn't immediately drive 
     emission reductions? Then the tax will be an effective 
     revenue raiser, much more efficient than a tax on income. 
     Either way you win. The worry about carbon leakage is a real 
     one, but this dynamic also implies that each new country that 
     prices carbon increases the benefit of existing carbon-price 
     policies in other countries.
       Substitution in the transport sector is somewhat 
     problematic, but a viable carbon price would not have much 
     effect on petrol costs at the outset. A carbon tax of $30 per 
     tonne of CO2 would only increase petrol costs by about 9 
     cents per gallon. This is dwarfed by moves in the market 
     price of petrol. The vulnerability of the American economy to 
     oil shocks argues for an increased tax on petrol, but that's 
     a different policy debate. Mr. Cowen seems to ignore the fact 
     that oil is just one small part of the American economy's 
     fossil-fuel use.
       A carbon tax would attract rent-seeking, but arguably less 
     than alternative policies, like subsidies or a cap-and-trade 
     system. Importantly, money spent on adaptation or post hoc 
     climate-disaster relief is also subject to rent-seeking and 
     corruption issues. Given that many poor countries with weak 
     institutions are likely to feel the brunt of the impact of 
     global warming first and are likely to be poor spenders of 
     the aid money that will invariably flow, a carbon tax looks 
     like one of the policy solutions best suited to the 
     minimisation of these ills.
       Mr. Cowen doesn't mention what I see as one of the most 
     important roles of a carbon tax: as a check on other ill-
     advised programmes. A carbon tax would have quickly made the 
     net dirtiness of corn-based ethanol obvious (by helping to 
     offset subsidies and making corn-based ethanol more 
     expensive). It would be more difficult to roll out and 
     sustain such misguided programmes with a carbon tax, and the 
     ones that went ahead anyway would do less damage. A carbon 
     tax is also the easiest way to capture whatever low-hanging 
     emission-reduction fruit is out there. Right now, consumers 
     are generally indifferent between similarly-priced goods with 
     wildly different carbon profiles. A carbon tax encourages 
     consumers to realise the easy carbon gains available from 
     switching to good low-carbon substitutes wherever they exist.
       The biggest problem with a carbon tax is that America's 
     government seems unable to deliver one. Attitudes may change, 
     however, and near-uniform economist support for the policy 
     (probably) doesn't hurt its odds of eventual passage.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Nov. 18, 2014]

                A Carbon Tax Could Bolster Green Energy

                          (By Eduardo Porter)


                             ECONOMIC SCENE

       A couple of years ago, the smart money was on wind. In 
     2012, 13 gigawatts worth of wind-powered electricity 
     generation capacity was installed in the United States, 
     enough to meet the needs of roughly three million homes. That 
     was some 40 percent of all the capacity added to the nation's 
     power grid that year, up from seven gigawatts added in 2011 
     and just over five in 2010.
       But then a federal subsidy ended. Only one gigawatt worth 
     of wind power capacity was installed in 2013. In the first 
     half of 2014, additions totaled 0.835 gigawatts. Facing a 
     Congress controlled by Republicans with little interest in 
     renewable energy, wind power's future suddenly appears much 
     more uncertain.
       ``Wind is competitive in more and more markets,'' said 
     Letha Tawney at the World Resources Institute. ``But any time 
     there is uncertainty about the production tax credit, it all 
     stops.''
       Wobbles on the road to a low-carbon future are hardly 
     unique to the United States. In its latest Energy Technology 
     Perspectives report, the International Energy Agency noted 
     that the deployment of photovoltaic solar- and wind-powered 
     electricity was meeting goals established to help prevent 
     temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 
     degrees Fahrenheit) above the average in the preindustrial 
     era, the limit agreed to by the world's leaders to avoid 
     truly disruptive climatic upheaval.
       In the same report, however, the organization noted that 
     other technologies--bioenergy, geothermal and offshore wind--
     were lagging. And it pointed out that worldwide investment in 
     renewable power was slowing, falling to $211 billion in 2013, 
     22 percent less than in 2011.
       These wobbles underscore both the good news and the bad 
     news about the world's halting progress toward reducing the 
     greenhouse gas emissions that are capturing heat in the 
     atmosphere and changing the world's climate.
       The good news is that humanity is developing promising 
     technologies that could put civilization on a low carbon path 
     that might prevent climate disruption.
       These technologies allowed the Environmental Protection 
     Agency to pass new rules aimed at achieving a 30 percent 
     reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from American power 
     plants by 2030, compared with 2005.
       They allowed President Obama last week to promise that the 
     United States would curb total greenhouse gas emissions by 26 
     to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025--a big step that, 
     White House officials say, can be achieved without further 
     action from Congress. And they allowed China to commit to 
     start cutting emissions after 2030.
       The bad news is that civilization is mostly not yet on such 
     a low carbon path. While promising technologies to get there 
     have been developed, it is unclear whether nations will 
     muster the political will and mobilize the needed investments 
     to deploy them.
       New energy technologies have become decidedly more 
     competitive. The United States' Energy Information 
     Administration projects that the levelized cost of onshore 
     wind energy coming on stream in 2019--a measure that includes 
     everything from capital costs to operational outlays--could 
     be as little as $71 per megawatt-hour measured in 2012 
     dollars, even without subsidies. This is $16 less than the 
     lower cost projection four years ago for wind energy coming 
     online in 2015.
       Similarly, projections for the levelized cost of energy 
     from photovoltaic solar cells have tumbled by more than 40 
     percent, much faster than the cost projections of energy from 
     coal or natural gas.
       Challenges remain to relying on intermittent energy sources 
     like the sun or the wind for power. Still, experts believe 
     that hitching solar and wind plants to gas-fired generators, 
     and using new load management technologies to align demand 
     for power with the variable supply, offer a promising path 
     for aggressively reducing the amount of carbon the power 
     industry pumps into the atmosphere, which accounts for nearly 
     40 percent of the nation's total carbon dioxide emissions.
       And new Energy Information Administration projections to 
     2040 show prices for renewables falling even lower. By then, 
     electricity from photovoltaic solar plants could be generated 
     for as little as $86.50 per megawatt-hour, without subsidies. 
     In some areas wind-based plants could produce it for as 
     little as $63.40.
       Nuclear energy is also becoming more competitive. Without 
     any subsidies, new-generation nuclear power coming on stream 
     in 2040 could cost as little as $80 per megawatt-hour, all 
     costs considered. This is only marginally more expensive than 
     electricity produced with coal or natural gas, even without 
     the added cost of capturing the carbon dioxide.

[[Page S6153]]

       And there are much more optimistic cost assessments out 
     there than the Energy Information Administration's.
       But for all the optimism generated by cheaper renewable 
     fuels, they do not, on their own, put the world on the low-
     carbon path necessary to keep climate change in check.
       Progress is faltering on several fronts. The precipitous 
     fall in the prices of photovoltaic cells from 2008 to 2012 
     pretty much stopped in 2013, after rapid consolidation of the 
     industry.
       The International Energy Agency now projects that installed 
     global nuclear capacity in 2025 will fall 5 percent, to 24 
     percent below what will be needed to stay on the safe side of 
     climate change. And carbon capture technologies, which will 
     be essential if the world is to keep consuming any form of 
     fossil fuel, remain hampered by high costs, meager investment 
     and scant political commitment.
       ``The unrelenting rise in coal use without deployment of 
     carbon capture and storage is fundamentally incompatible with 
     climate change objectives,'' noted the International Energy 
     Agency in its Technology Perspectives report.
       Despite the falling costs of renewable energy in the United 
     States, the Energy Information Administration's baseline 
     assumptions project that in 2040 only 16.5 percent of 
     electricity generation will come from renewable energy 
     sources, up from some 13 percent today. More than two-thirds 
     will come from coal and gas. Without some carbon capture and 
     storage technology, drastic climate change is almost 
     certainly unavoidable.
       What is necessary to get us on a safer path?
       White House officials trust that the administration has the 
     tools, including fuel economy and appliance efficiency 
     standards, the Environmental Protection Agency's new limits 
     on power plant emissions and regulations to limit other 
     greenhouse gases.
       Yet the Energy Information Administration's projections 
     suggest how hard the task will be. Though they were developed 
     before the Environmental Protection Agency issued its new 
     rules, they included hypothetical outlines that could mimic 
     some of its effects. In one, coal power plants were 
     decommissioned more quickly; in another, subsidies to 
     renewable energy were kept until 2040. In another, the price 
     of renewables fell faster than expected. None of them did 
     much to move the carbon dial.
       There is one tool available to trim carbon emissions on a 
     relevant scale: a carbon tax. That solution, however, remains 
     off the table.
       If a carbon tax were to be imposed next year, starting at 
     $25 and rising by 5 percent a year, the Energy Information 
     Administration estimates, carbon dioxide emissions from 
     American power plants would fall to only 419 million tons by 
     2040, about one-fifth of where they are today. Total carbon 
     dioxide emissions from energy in the United States would fall 
     to 3.6 billion tons--1.8 billion tons less than today. By 
     providing a monetary incentive, economists say, such a tax 
     would offer by far the most effective way to encourage 
     business and individuals to reduce their use of fossil fuels 
     and invest in alternatives.
       Is this enough? No. This proposal still leaves the United 
     States short of the 8o percent cut in greenhouse gas 
     emissions that the White House is aiming for and that experts 
     consider necessary by 2050 to prevent climatic havoc. But at 
     least it's in the same order of magnitude.
       Most important, perhaps, the Energy Information 
     Administration's estimates make clear that the real 
     constraint lies not in our ability to develop the necessary 
     technologies but in our political will to deploy them.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Portman):
  S. 2941. A bill to combat human trafficking; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, along with 
Senator Portman, the Combat Human Trafficking Act of 2014.
  Human trafficking is estimated to be a $32 billion criminal 
enterprise, making it the second largest criminal industry in the 
world, behind the drug trade. Many steps need to be taken to combat 
this problem. But we cannot escape this simple truth: without demand 
for the services performed by trafficking victims, the problem would 
not exist.
  The bill we are introducing today would reduce the demand for human 
trafficking, particularly the commercial sexual exploitation of 
children, by holding buyers accountable and making it easier for law 
enforcement to investigate and prosecute all persons who participate in 
sex trafficking.
  Sex trafficking is not a victimless crime. In the United States, the 
average age that a person is first trafficked is between 12 and 14. 
Many of these children continue to be exploited into adulthood. A study 
of women and girls involved in street prostitution in my hometown of 
San Francisco found that 82 percent had been physically assaulted, 83 
percent were threatened with a weapon, and 68 percent were raped. The 
overwhelming majority of sex trafficking victims are American 
citizens--83 percent by one estimate from the Department of Justice.
  I am encouraged that Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
agencies are taking steps to combat human trafficking. Between January 
and June of this year, the Federal Bureau of Investigation recovered 
168 trafficking victims and arrested 281 sex traffickers in ``Operation 
Cross Country.''
  I commend these efforts, but more needs to be done to target the 
perpetrators who are fueling demand for trafficking crimes--the buyers 
of sex acts from trafficking victims. Many buyers of sex are 
``hobbyists'' who purchase sex repeatedly. Because buyers are rarely 
arrested, much less prosecuted, the demand for commercial sex continues 
unabated.
  Without buyers, sex trafficking would cease to exist. As Luis 
CdeBaca, the U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for the Office to Monitor and 
Combat Trafficking in Persons, noted, ``[n]o girl or woman would be a 
victim of sex trafficking if there were no profits to be made from 
their exploitation.''
  The Combat Human Trafficking Act of 2014 would address this problem, 
by incentivizing federal and state law enforcement officers to target 
buyers and providing new authorities to prosecute all who engage in the 
crime of sex trafficking.
  First, the bill would clarify that buyers of sex acts from 
trafficking victims can be prosecuted under the federal commercial sex 
trafficking statute. This provision would codify the Eighth Circuit's 
decision in United States v. Jungers, which held that this statute 
encompasses buyers, in addition to sellers. Despite this favorable 
ruling, there is no guarantee that other courts will follow this 
precedent.
  Second, the bill would hold buyers and sellers of child sex acts 
accountable for their actions, even if they claim they were unaware of 
the age of a minor victim. At times, it can be difficult for a 
prosecutor to prove that a buyer was aware of the victim's age. 
Successful cases can require the child victim to testify to this fact, 
subjecting the victim to re-traumatization. The bill would draw a clear 
line: if you purchase sex from an underage child, you can be 
prosecuted. Period.
  Third, the bill would grant judges greater flexibility to impose an 
appropriate term of supervised release on sex traffickers. Current law 
contains an anomaly: a person convicted of violating the commercial sex 
trafficking statute or attempting to violate the statute may be subject 
to a longer term of supervised release than a person who is convicted 
of conspiring to violate the statute. Conspiring to traffic underage 
children is as serious as attempting to commit this crime and should be 
punished the same.
  Fourth, the bill would require the Bureau of Justice Statistics to 
prepare annual reports on the number of arrests, prosecutions, and 
convictions of sex traffickers and buyers of sex from trafficked 
victims in the state court system. Very little data is available on the 
prosecutions made under anti-trafficking laws. This provision would 
provide additional data and encourage state and local governments to 
increase enforcement against sellers and buyers of sex from trafficked 
victims.
  Fifth, the Combat Human Trafficking Act would ensure that training 
programs for federal and state law enforcement officers include 
components on effective methods to target and prosecute the buyers of 
sex acts from trafficked victims. This would equip prosecutors with the 
tools they need to target buyers, encouraging prosecution of these 
perpetrators.
  Sixth, the bill would authorize federal and state officials to seek a 
wiretap to investigate and prosecute any human trafficking-related 
offense. Under current law, a federal law enforcement officer may seek 
a wiretap in an investigation under the commercial sex trafficking 
statute, but not under a number of other statutes that address human 
trafficking-related offenses, such as forced labor and involuntary 
servitude. Similarly, a state law enforcement officer may seek a 
wiretap to investigate a kidnapping offense, but not an offense for 
human trafficking, child sexual exploitation,

[[Page S6154]]

or child pornography production. Our bill would fix those omissions.
  Finally, this legislation would strengthen the rights of crime 
victims. The bill would amend the Crime Victims' Rights Act to provide 
victims with the right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea 
agreement or deferred prosecution agreement. The exclusion of victims 
in these early stages of a criminal case profoundly impairs victims' 
rights because, by the nature of these events, there often is no later 
proceeding in which victims can exercise their rights.
  The bill would also ensure that crime victims have access to 
appellate review when their rights are denied in the lower court. 
Regrettably, five appellate courts have mis-applied the Crime Victims' 
Rights Act by imposing an especially high standard for reviewing 
appeals by victims, requiring them to show ``clear and indisputable 
error''. Four other circuits have applied the correct standard: the 
ordinary appellate standard of legal error or abuse of discretion. This 
bill resolves the issue, setting a uniform standard for victims in all 
circuits by codifying the more victim-protecting rule, that the 
appellate court ``shall apply ordinary standards of appellate review.''
  I am pleased that this bill has the support of numerous law 
enforcement and anti-trafficking organizations: the Federal Law 
Enforcement Officers Association, Shared Hope International, ECPAT-USA, 
Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, CATW, Human Rights Project for 
Girls, Survivors for Solutions, Sanctuary For Families, World Hope 
International, Prostitution Research & Education, MISSSEY, and Breaking 
Free. These groups are on the forefront in the fight against sex 
trafficking, and I am proud to have their support.
  I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Portman in supporting 
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. 2941

       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 ``Combat Human Trafficking Act 
     of 2014''.

     SEC. 2. REDUCING DEMAND FOR SEX TRAFFICKING; LOWER MENS REA 
                   FOR SEX TRAFFICKING OF UNDERAGE VICTIMS.

       (a) Clarification of Range of Conduct Punished as Sex 
     Trafficking.--Section 1591 of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``or maintains'' and 
     inserting ``maintains, patronizes, or solicits'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``or obtained'' and 
     inserting ``obtained, patronized, or solicited''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``or obtained'' and 
     inserting ``obtained, patronized, or solicited''; and
       (3) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
       ``(c) In a prosecution under subsection (a)(1), the 
     Government need not prove that the defendant knew, or 
     recklessly disregarded the fact, that the person recruited, 
     enticed, harbored, transported, provided, obtained, 
     maintained, patronized, or solicited had not attained the age 
     of 18 years.''.
       (b) Definition Amended.--Section 103(10) of the Trafficking 
     Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102(10)) is 
     amended by striking ``or obtaining'' and inserting 
     ``obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting''.
       (c) Minimum Period of Supervised Release for Conspiracy to 
     Commit Commercial Child Sex Trafficking.--Section 3583(k) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     ``1594(c),'' after ``1591,''.

     SEC. 3. BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS REPORT ON STATE 
                   ENFORCEMENT OF SEX TRAFFICKING PROHIBITIONS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the terms ``commercial sex act'', ``severe forms of 
     trafficking in persons'', ``State'', and ``Task Force'' have 
     the meanings given those terms in section 103 of the 
     Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102);
       (2) the term ``covered offense'' means the provision, 
     obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of a commercial sex act 
     involving a person subject to severe forms of trafficking in 
     persons; and
       (3) the term ``State law enforcement officer'' means any 
     officer, agent, or employee of a State authorized by law or 
     by a State government agency to engage in or supervise the 
     prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any 
     violation of criminal law.
       (b) Report.--The Director of the Bureau of Justice 
     Statistics shall--
       (1) prepare an annual report on--
       (A) the rates of--
       (i) arrest of individuals by State law enforcement officers 
     for a covered offense;
       (ii) prosecution (including specific charges) of 
     individuals in State court systems for a covered offense; and
       (iii) conviction of individuals in State court systems for 
     a covered offense; and
       (B) sentences imposed on individuals convicted in State 
     court systems for a covered offense; and
       (2) submit the annual report prepared under paragraph (1) 
     to--
       (A) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives;
       (B) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;
       (C) the Task Force;
       (D) the Senior Policy Operating Group established under 
     section 105(g) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 
     2000 (22 U.S.C. 7103(g)); and
       (E) the Attorney General.

     SEC. 4. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TRAINING AND POLICY.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the terms ``commercial sex act'', ``severe forms of 
     trafficking in persons'', and ``State'' have the meanings 
     given those terms in section 103 of the Trafficking Victims 
     Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102);
       (2) the term ``Federal law enforcement officer'' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 115 of title 18, United 
     States Code;
       (3) the term ``local law enforcement officer'' means any 
     officer, agent, or employee of a unit of local government 
     authorized by law or by a local government agency to engage 
     in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or 
     prosecution of any violation of criminal law; and
       (4) the term ``State law enforcement officer'' means any 
     officer, agent, or employee of a State authorized by law or 
     by a State government agency to engage in or supervise the 
     prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any 
     violation of criminal law.
       (b) Training.--The Attorney General shall ensure that each 
     anti-human trafficking program operated by the Department of 
     Justice, including each anti-human trafficking training 
     program for Federal, State, or local law enforcement 
     officers, includes technical training on effective methods 
     for investigating and prosecuting individuals who obtain, 
     patronize, or solicit a commercial sex act involving a person 
     subject to severe forms of trafficking in persons.
       (c) Policy for Federal Law Enforcement Officers.--The 
     Attorney General shall ensure that Federal law enforcement 
     officers are engaged in activities, programs, or operations 
     involving the detection, investigation, and prosecution of 
     individuals described in subsection (b).

     SEC. 5. WIRETAP AUTHORITY FOR HUMAN TRAFFICKING VIOLATIONS.

       Section 2516 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(c)--
       (A) by inserting before ``section 1591'' the following: 
     ``section 1581 (peonage), section 1584 (involuntary 
     servitude), section 1589 (forced labor), section 1590 
     (trafficking with respect to peonage, slavery, involuntary 
     servitude, or forced labor),''; and
       (B) by inserting before ``section 1751'' the following: 
     ``section 1592 (unlawful conduct with respect to documents in 
     furtherance of trafficking, peonage, slavery, involuntary 
     servitude, or forced labor),''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``human trafficking, 
     child sexual exploitation, child pornography production,'' 
     after ``kidnapping,''.

     SEC. 6. STRENGTHENING CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS.

       (a) Notification of Plea Agreement or Other Agreement.--
     Section 3771(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) The right to be informed in a timely manner of any 
     plea agreement or deferred prosecution agreement.''.
       (b) Appellate Review of Petitions Relating to Crime 
     Victims' Rights.--
       (1) In general.--Section 3771(d)(3) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting after the fifth sentence 
     the following: ``In deciding such application, the court of 
     appeals shall apply ordinary standards of appellate 
     review.''.
       (2) Application.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall 
     apply with respect to any petition for a writ of mandamus 
     filed under section 3771(d)(3) of title 18, United States 
     Code, that is pending on the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Corker, Mr. Coons, and Mr. 
        Flake):
  S. 2946. A bill to provide improved water, sanitation, and hygiene 
programs for high priority developing countries, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  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. 2946

       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 ``Senator Paul Simon Water for 
     the World Act of 2014''.

[[Page S6155]]

     SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) water and sanitation are critically important resources 
     that impact many other aspects of human life;
       (2) the United States should be a global leader in helping 
     provide sustainable access to clean water and sanitation for 
     the world's most vulnerable populations; and
       (3) the ``USAID Water and Development Strategy, 2013-
     2018'', which was released by the United States Agency for 
     International Development in May 2013--
       (A) improves USAID's capacity to provide sustainable water, 
     sanitation, and hygiene assistance;
       (B) advances implementation of portions of the Senator Paul 
     Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-121; 119 
     Stat. 2533), and
       (C) should inform the Global Water Strategy required under 
     section 136(j) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as 
     added by section 6 of this Act.

     SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION OF ASSISTANCE TO PROVIDE SAFE WATER AND 
                   SANITATION TO INCLUDE HYGIENE.

       Chapter 1 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 135 (22 U.S.C. 2152h), as 
     added by section 5(a) of the Senator Paul Simon Water for the 
     Poor Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-121; 22 U.S.C. 2152h note), 
     as section 136; and
       (2) in section 136, as redesignated--
       (A) in the section heading, by striking `AND SANITATION'' 
     and inserting ``, SANITATION, AND HYGIENE''; and
       (B) in subsection (b), by striking ``and sanitation'' and 
     inserting ``, sanitation, and hygiene''.

     SEC. 4. IMPROVING COORDINATION AND OVERSIGHT OF SAFE WATER, 
                   SANITATION AND HYGIENE PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES.

       Section 136 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as 
     redesignated and amended by this Act, is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Coordination and Oversight.--
       ``(1) USAID global water coordinator.--
       ``(A) Designation.--The Administrator of the United States 
     Agency for International Development (referred to in this 
     paragraph as `USAID') or the Administrator's designee, who 
     shall be a current USAID employee serving in a career or non-
     career position in the Senior Executive Service or at the 
     level of a Deputy Assistant Administrator or higher, shall 
     serve concurrently as the USAID Global Water Coordinator 
     (referred to in this subsection as the `Coordinator').
       ``(B) Specific duties.--The Coordinator shall--
       ``(i) provide direction and guidance to, coordinate, and 
     oversee the projects and programs of USAID authorized under 
     this section;
       ``(ii) lead the implementation and revision, not less 
     frequently than once every 5 years, of USAID's portion of the 
     Global Water Strategy required under subsection (j);
       ``(iii) seek--

       ``(I) to expand the capacity of USAID, subject to the 
     availability of appropriations, including through the 
     designation of a lead subject matter expert selected from 
     among USAID staff in each high priority country designated 
     pursuant to subsection (h);
       ``(II) to implement such programs and activities;
       ``(III) to take advantage of economies of scale; and
       ``(IV) to conduct more efficient and effective projects and 
     programs;

       ``(iv) coordinate with the Department of State and USAID 
     staff in each high priority country designated pursuant to 
     subsection (h) to ensure that USAID activities and projects, 
     USAID program planning and budgeting documents, and USAID 
     country development strategies reflect and seek to 
     implement--

       ``(I) the safe water, sanitation, and hygiene objectives 
     established in the strategy required under subsection (j), 
     including objectives relating to the management of water 
     resources; and
       ``(II) international best practices relating to--

       ``(aa) increasing access to safe water and sanitation;
       ``(bb) conducting hygiene-related activities; and
       ``(cc) ensuring appropriate management of water resources; 
     and
       ``(v) develop appropriate benchmarks, measurable goals, 
     performance metrics, and monitoring and evaluation plans for 
     USAID projects and programs authorized under this section.
       ``(2) Department of state special coordinator for water 
     resources.--
       ``(A) Designation.--The Secretary of State or the 
     Secretary's designee, who shall be a current employee of the 
     Department of State serving in a career or non-career 
     position in the Senior Executive Service or at the level of a 
     Deputy Assistant Secretary or higher, shall serve 
     concurrently as the Department of State Special Advisor for 
     Water Resources (referred to in this paragraph as the 
     `Special Advisor').
       ``(B) Specific duties.--The Special Advisor shall--
       ``(i) provide direction and guidance to, coordinate, and 
     oversee the projects and programs of the Department of State 
     authorized under this section;
       ``(ii) lead the implementation and revision, not less than 
     every 5 years, of the Department of State's portion of the 
     Global Water Strategy required under subsection (j);
       ``(iii) prioritize and coordinate the Department of State's 
     international engagement on the allocation, distribution, and 
     access to global fresh water resources and policies related 
     to such matters;
       ``(iv) coordinate with United States Agency for 
     International Development and Department of State staff in 
     each high priority country designated pursuant to subsection 
     (h) to ensure that United States diplomatic efforts related 
     to safe water, sanitation, and hygiene, including efforts 
     related to management of water resources and watersheds and 
     the resolution of intra- and trans-boundary conflicts over 
     water resources, are consistent with United States national 
     interests; and
       ``(v) represent the views of the United States Government 
     on the allocation, distribution, and access to global fresh 
     water resources and policies related to such matters in key 
     international fora, including key diplomatic, development-
     related, and scientific organizations.
       ``(3) Additional nature of duties and restriction on 
     additional or supplemental compensation.--The 
     responsibilities and specific duties of the Administrator of 
     the United States Agency for International Development (or 
     the Administrator's designee) and the Secretary of State (or 
     the Secretary's designee) under paragraph (2) or (3), 
     respectively, shall be in addition to any other 
     responsibilities or specific duties assigned to such 
     individuals. Such individuals shall receive no additional or 
     supplemental compensation as a result of carrying out such 
     responsibilities and specific duties under such 
     paragraphs.''.

     SEC. 5. PROMOTING THE MAXIMUM IMPACT AND LONG-TERM 
                   SUSTAINABILITY OF USAID SAFE WATER, SANITATION, 
                   AND HYGIENE-RELATED PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS.

       Section 136 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as 
     redesignated and amended by this Act, is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Priorities and Criteria for Maximum Impact and Long 
     Term Sustainability.--The Administrator of the United States 
     Agency for International Development shall ensure that the 
     Agency for International Development's projects and programs 
     authorized under this section are designed to achieve maximum 
     impact and long-term sustainability by--
       ``(1) prioritizing countries on the basis of the following 
     clearly defined criteria and indicators, to the extent 
     sufficient data are available--
       ``(A) the proportion of the population using an unimproved 
     drinking water source;
       ``(B) the total population using an unimproved drinking 
     water source;
       ``(C) the proportion of the population without piped water 
     access;
       ``(D) the proportion of the population using shared or 
     other unimproved sanitation facilities;
       ``(E) the total population using shared or other unimproved 
     sanitation facilities;
       ``(F) the proportion of the population practicing open 
     defecation;
       ``(G) the total number of children younger than 5 years of 
     age who died from diarrheal disease;
       ``(H) the proportion of all deaths of children younger than 
     5 years of age resulting from diarrheal disease;
       ``(I) the national government's capacity, capability, and 
     commitment to work with the United States to improve access 
     to safe water, sanitation, and hygiene, including--
       ``(i) the government's capacity and commitment to 
     developing the indigenous capacity to provide safe water and 
     sanitation without the assistance of outside donors; and
       ``(ii) the degree to which such government--

       ``(I) identifies such efforts as a priority; and
       ``(II) allocates resources to such efforts;

       ``(J) the availability of opportunities to leverage 
     existing public, private, or other donor investments in the 
     water, sanitation, and hygiene sectors, including investments 
     in the management of water resources; and
       ``(K) the likelihood of making significant improvements on 
     a per capita basis on the health and educational 
     opportunities available to women as a result of increased 
     access to safe water, sanitation, and hygiene, including 
     access to appropriate facilities at primary and secondary 
     educational institutions seeking to ensure that communities 
     benefitting from such projects and activities develop the 
     indigenous capacity to provide safe water and sanitation 
     without the assistance of outside donors;
       ``(2) prioritizing and measuring, including through 
     rigorous monitoring and evaluating mechanisms, the extent to 
     which such project or program--
       ``(A) furthers significant improvements in--
       ``(i) the criteria set forth in subparagraphs (A) through 
     (H) of paragraph (1);
       ``(ii) the health and educational opportunities available 
     to women as a result of increased access to safe water, 
     sanitation, and hygiene, including access to appropriate 
     facilities at primary and secondary educational institutions; 
     and
       ``(iii) the indigenous capacity of the host nation or 
     community to provide safe water and sanitation without the 
     assistance of outside donors;

[[Page S6156]]

       ``(B) is designed, as part of the provision of safe water 
     and sanitation to the local community--
       ``(i) to be financially independent over the long term, 
     focusing on local ownership and sustainability;
       ``(ii) to be undertaken in conjunction with relevant public 
     institutions or private enterprises;
       ``(iii) to identify and empower local individuals or 
     institutions to be responsible for the effective management 
     and maintenance of such project or program; and
       ``(iv) to provide safe water or expertise or capacity 
     building to those identified parties or institutions for the 
     purposes of developing a plan and clear responsibilities for 
     the effective management and maintenance of such project or 
     program;
       ``(C) leverages existing public, private, or other donor 
     investments in the water, sanitation, and hygiene sectors, 
     including investments in the management of water resources;
       ``(D) avoids duplication of efforts with other United 
     States Government agencies or departments or those of other 
     nations or nongovernmental organizations;
       ``(E) coordinates such efforts with the efforts of other 
     United States Government agencies or departments or those of 
     other nations or nongovernmental organizations directed at 
     assisting refugees and other displaced individuals; and
       ``(F) involves consultation with appropriate stakeholders, 
     including communities directly affected by the lack of access 
     to clean water, sanitation or hygiene, and other appropriate 
     nongovernmental organizations;
       ``(3) seeking to further the `USAID Water and Development 
     Strategy, 2013-2018' through 2018; and
       ``(4) seeking to further the strategy required under 
     subsection (j) after 2018.
       ``(g) Use of Improved Data Collection and Review of New 
     Standardized Indicators.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator of the United States 
     Agency for International Development is authorized to use 
     improved data collection--
       ``(A) to meet the health-based prioritization criteria 
     established pursuant to subsection (f)(1); and
       ``(B) to review new standardized indicators in evaluating 
     progress towards meeting such criteria.
       ``(2) Consultation and notice.--The Administrator shall--
       ``(A) regularly consult with the appropriate congressional 
     committees; and
       ``(B) notify such committees not later 30 days before using 
     improved data collection and review of new standardized 
     indicators under paragraph (1) for the purposes of carrying 
     out this section.
       ``(h) Designation of High Priority Countries.--
       ``(1) Initial designation.--Not later than October 1, 2015, 
     the President shall--
       ``(A) designate, on the basis of the criteria set forth in 
     subsection (f)(1) and in furtherance of the `USAID Water and 
     Development Strategy, 2013-2018', not fewer than 10 countries 
     as high priority countries to be the primary recipients of 
     United States Government assistance authorized under this 
     section during fiscal year 2016; and
       ``(B) notify the appropriate congressional committees of 
     such designations.
       ``(2) Annual designations.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the President shall annually make new designations pursuant 
     to the criteria set forth in paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Designations after fiscal year 2018.--Beginning with 
     fiscal year 2019, designations under paragraph (1) shall be 
     made--
       ``(i) based upon the criteria set forth in subsection 
     (f)(1); and
       ``(ii) in furtherance of the strategy required under 
     subsection (j).
       ``(i) Targeting of Projects and Programs to Areas of 
     Greatest Need.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 15 days before the 
     obligation of any funds for water, sanitation, or hygiene 
     projects or programs pursuant to this section in countries 
     that are not ranked in the top 50 countries based upon the 
     WASH Needs Index, the Administrator of the United States 
     Agency for International Development shall notify the 
     appropriate congressional committees of the planned 
     obligation of such funds.
       ``(2) Defined term.--In this subsection and in subsection 
     (j), the term `WASH Needs Index' means the needs index for 
     water, sanitation, or hygiene projects or programs authorized 
     under this section that has been developed using the criteria 
     and indicators described in subparagraphs (A) through (H) of 
     subsection (f)(1).''.

     SEC. 6. UNITED STATES STRATEGY TO INCREASE APPROPRIATE LONG-
                   TERM SUSTAINABILITY AND ACCESS TO SAFE WATER, 
                   SANITATION, AND HYGIENE.

       (a) In General.--Section 136 of the Foreign Assistance Act 
     of 1961, as redesignated and amended by this Act, is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Global Water Strategy.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than October 1, 2017, and 
     every 5 years thereafter, the President, acting through the 
     Secretary of State, the Administrator of the United States 
     Agency for International Development, and the heads of other 
     Federal departments and agencies, as appropriate, shall 
     submit a single government-wide Global Water Strategy to the 
     appropriate congressional committees that provides a detailed 
     description of how the United States intends--
       ``(A) to increase access to safe water, sanitation, and 
     hygiene in high priority countries designated pursuant to 
     subsection (h), including a summary of the WASH Needs Index 
     and the specific weighting of data and other assumptions used 
     to develop and rank countries on the WASH Needs Index;
       ``(B) to improve the management of water resources and 
     watersheds in such countries; and
       ``(C) to work to prevent and resolve, to the greatest 
     degree possible, both intra- and trans-boundary conflicts 
     over water resources in such countries.
       ``(2) Agency specific plans.--The Global Water Strategy 
     shall include an agency-specific plan--
       ``(A) from the United States Agency for International 
     Development that describes specifically how the Agency for 
     International Development will--
       ``(i) carry out the duties and responsibilities assigned to 
     the Global Water Coordinator under subsection (e)(1);
       ``(ii) ensure that the Agency for International 
     Development's projects and programs authorized under this 
     section are designed to achieve maximum impact and long-term 
     sustainability, including by implementing the requirements 
     described in subsection (f); and
       ``(iii) increase access to safe water, sanitation, and 
     hygiene in high priority countries designated pursuant to 
     subsection (h);
       ``(B) from the Department of State that describes 
     specifically how the Department of State will--
       ``(i) carry out the duties and responsibilities assigned to 
     the Special Coordinator for Water Resources under subsection 
     (e)(2); and
       ``(ii) ensure that the Department's activities authorized 
     under this section are designed--

       ``(I) to improve management of water resources and 
     watersheds in countries designated pursuant to subsection 
     (h); and
       ``(II) to prevent and resolve, to the greatest degree 
     possible, both intra- and trans-boundary conflicts over water 
     resources in such countries; and

       ``(C) from other Federal departments and agencies, as 
     appropriate, that describes the contributions of the 
     departments and agencies to implementing the Global Water 
     Strategy.
       ``(3) Individualized plans for high priority countries.--
     For each high priority country designated pursuant to 
     subsection (h), the Administrator of the United States Agency 
     for International Development shall--
       ``(A) develop a costed, evidence-based, and results-
     oriented plan that--
       ``(i) seeks to achieve the purposes of this section; and
       ``(ii) meets the requirements under subsection (f); and
       ``(B) include such plan in an appendix to the Global Water 
     Strategy required under paragraph (1).
       ``(4) First time access reporting requirement.--The Global 
     Water Strategy shall specifically describe the target 
     percentage of funding for each fiscal year covered by such 
     strategy to be directed toward projects aimed at providing 
     first-time access to safe water and sanitation.
       ``(5) Performance indicators.--The Global Water Strategy 
     shall include specific and measurable goals, benchmarks, 
     performance metrics, timetables, and monitoring and 
     evaluation plans required to be developed by the 
     Administrator of the United States Agency for International 
     Development pursuant to subsection (e)(1)(B)(v).
       ``(6) Consultation and best practices.--The Global Water 
     Strategy shall--
       ``(A) be developed in consultation with the heads of other 
     appropriate Federal departments and agencies; and
       ``(B) incorporate best practices from the international 
     development community.
       ``(k) Definition.--In this section, the term `appropriate 
     congressional committees' means--
       ``(1) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate;
       ``(2) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate;
       ``(3) the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       ``(4) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives.''.
       (b) Department of State Agency Specific Plan.--Not later 
     than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of State shall submit an agency-specific plan to 
     the appropriate congressional committees (as defined in 
     section 136(k) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as 
     added by subsection (a)) that meets the requirements of 
     section 136(j)(2)(B) of such Act, as added by subsection (a).
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 6 of the Senator Paul 
     Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-121; 22 
     U.S.C. 2152h note) is repealed.

[[Page S6157]]



                          ____________________